Latent Print Unit Technical Procedures€¦ · Web view · 2018-04-17Raleigh/Wake City-County . Bureau of Identification. Crime Laboratory Division. LATENT PRINT UNIT TECHNICAL

Raleigh/Wake City-County Bureau of Identification

Crime Laboratory Division

LATENT PRINT UNIT TECHNICAL PROCEDURES (2018)

Page 1 of 55

Raleigh/Wake City-County Bureau of IdentificationLatent Print Unit Technical Procedures Manual

Issued: February 5, 2018 Chapter: LPTPTCIssued By: CCBI Director Version 1

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: EVIDENCE HANDLING.......................................................................................... 7

1. Purpose...................................................................................................................................................... 7

2. Scope......................................................................................................................................................... 7

3. Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................ 7

4. Equipment, Materials, and Reagents......................................................................................................... 7

5. Retrieval of Latent Print Evidence from the Latent Evidence Locker......................................................7

6. Receipt of Ten Print Comparison Requests...............................................................................................7

7. Receipt of Digital Evidence........................................................................................................................ 8

8. Limitations................................................................................................................................................ 8

9. Safety......................................................................................................................................................... 8

10. References............................................................................................................................................. 8

CHAPTER 2: AUTOMATED SYSTEMS.............................................................................................. 9

1. Purpose...................................................................................................................................................... 9

2. Scope......................................................................................................................................................... 9

3. Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................ 9


5. SPEX Database Searching......................................................................................................................... 9

6. SAFIS Database Searching...................................................................................................................... 10

7. Next Generation Identification Database Searching................................................................................11

8. SICAR Searching.................................................................................................................................... 11

9. CSIPix® Comparator.............................................................................................................................. 12

Page 2 of 55


Issued: February 5, 2018Issued By: CCBI Director

10. Maintenance........................................................................................................................................ 12

11. Limitations.......................................................................................................................................... 12

12. Safety................................................................................................................................................... 12

13. References........................................................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 3: WORK PROCESS......................................................................................................... 14

1. Purpose......................................................................................................................................................... 14

2. Scope............................................................................................................................................................ 14

3. Abbreviations................................................................................................................................................ 14

4. Equipment, Materials, and Reagents............................................................................................................. 14

5. Triaging for Database Searching..................................................................................................................... 14

6. Database Searching....................................................................................................................................... 14

7. Obtaining Known Standards.......................................................................................................................... 15

8. Rapid Identification Notification.................................................................................................................... 15

9. AFIS Association Examinations....................................................................................................................... 16

10. Limited Identification Examinations............................................................................................................. 17

11. Full Case Examinations................................................................................................................................ 17

12. Non-Testimonial Orders (NTO)..................................................................................................................... 18

13. Stop Work Requests.................................................................................................................................... 18

14. Limitations.................................................................................................................................................. 18

15. Safety.......................................................................................................................................................... 18

16. References.................................................................................................................................................. 18

CHAPTER 4: DIGITAL IMAGES........................................................................................................ 20

Page 3 of 55All copies of this document are uncontrolled when printed



1. Purpose.................................................................................................................................................... 20

2. Scope........................................................................................................................................................ 20

3. Abbreviations........................................................................................................................................... 20


5. Identifying Digital Images to be Searched..................................................................................................20

6. Searching Digital Images in SPEX............................................................................................................... 21

7. Searching Digital Images in SAFIS and NGI.................................................................................................21

8. Examination of Digital Images................................................................................................................... 21

9. Limitations................................................................................................................................................ 21

10. Safety................................................................................................................................................... 21

11. References............................................................................................................................................ 22

CHAPTER 5: ACE-V AND EXAMINATION MARKINGS...............................................................23

1. Purpose.................................................................................................................................................... 23

2. Scope........................................................................................................................................................ 23

3. Abbreviations........................................................................................................................................... 23


5. Case Notes................................................................................................................................................ 29

6. Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification (ACE-V)........................................................................29

7. Consultations............................................................................................................................................ 30

8. Conflict Resolution.................................................................................................................................... 31

9. Erroneous Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 31

10. Footwear Examination.......................................................................................................................... 31

11. Examination Markings.......................................................................................................................... 36




12. Limitations............................................................................................................................................ 38

13. Safety................................................................................................................................................... 38

14. References............................................................................................................................................ 38

CHAPTER 6: CASE FILE REVIEWS AND REPORTS.....................................................................40

1. Purpose.................................................................................................................................................... 40

2. Scope........................................................................................................................................................ 40

3. Abbreviations........................................................................................................................................... 40


5. Technical Reviews..................................................................................................................................... 40

6. Examinations and Reports......................................................................................................................... 41

7. Limitations................................................................................................................................................ 45

8. Safety....................................................................................................................................................... 45

9. References................................................................................................................................................ 45

CHAPTER 7: COLLECTION OF MAJOR CASE STYLE IMPRESSIONS AND PROCESSING HANDS AND FEET OF DECEASED INDIVIDUALS.......................................................................47

1. Purpose.................................................................................................................................................... 47

2. Scope........................................................................................................................................................ 47

3. Abbreviations........................................................................................................................................... 47


5. Collection of Major Case Style Impressions................................................................................................48

6. Processing of Hands and Feet of Deceased Individuals...............................................................................49

7. Limitations................................................................................................................................................ 50

8. Safety....................................................................................................................................................... 50




9. References................................................................................................................................................ 51

Chapter 8: Glossary................................................................................................................................................ 53



Issued: February 5, 2018 Chapter: LPTP01Issued By: CCBI Director Version 1

Chapter 1: Evidence Handling

1. Purpose

This procedure establishes additional guidelines for evidence handling in the Latent Print Unit.

2. Scope

This procedure applies to all persons assigned to and performing examinations in Latent Print Unit.

3. Abbreviations

N/A

4. Equipment, Materials, and Reagents

N/A

5. Retrieval of Latent Print Evidence from the Latent Evidence Locker

5.1. Latent Evidence deposited within the designated Latent Locker of the Main Evidence Vault will be triaged by a Forensic Supervisor or designee within the confines of the Main Evidence Vault and flagged for Technical Review.

5.2. Latent Examiners will remove their cases independently from the designated Latent Locker of the Main Evidence Vault

6. Receipt of Ten Print Comparison Requests

6.1. Request for ten-print comparisons require completion of a Laboratory Examination Request form (CCBI-002) and a Ten Print Exam Request form (CCBI-044).

6.2. Completed request forms may only be submitted through the e-mail portal for receiving latent unit requests at [email protected] or submitted as a hard copy to the CCBI Laboratory.

6.3. If the known standards for the subject listed on the request forms cannot be located, the requestor will be notified that the comparison cannot be completed and that the requestor is responsible for obtaining the subject’s known standards if the requesting individual still wants the examination completed.

Page 7 of 55

mailto:[email protected]


Issued: February 5, 2018 Chapter: LPTP01Issued By: CCBI Director Version: 1

7. Receipt of Digital Evidence

7.1. All latent print digital evidence must be submitted via the CCBI secure URL.

8. Limitations

N/A

9. Safety

N/A

10. References

N/A

Revision History

Effective Date Version

Number

Reason

2/5/18 1 New 2018 Tech Procedures




Chapter 2: Automated Systems

1. Purpose

This procedure establishes the general guidelines for searching impression evidence through Automated Fingerprint Identifications Systems (AFIS) and other automated systems utilized by the CCBI Latent Print Unit.

2. Scope

This procedure applies to all Latent Examiners utilizing AFIS and the other software systems described in this procedure.

3. Abbreviations

N/A


4.1. SPEX & scanner4.2. SAFIS – scanner & camera4.3. SICAR & scanner4.4. CSIpix® software

5. SPEX Database Searching

5.1. Latent Print Processing: Detailed instructions as to the entry of latent print impressions into the database may be found in the SPEX Forensics PrintQuest® AFIS Operation Manual v. 2.4, Chapter 4: Latent Processing. 5.1.1. In the “Latent Text Record Input” step, the following information will be entered in the

“Case Number” field: 5.1.1.1. Should a case number be less than four digits, zeros will proceed the number(s).

18-1234-1-RH

Year – Case # – Crime Type Index – Examiner 5.1.2. When creating a new case in “Latent Text Record Input,” all applicable fields must be

filled out. 5.1.2.1. The “Offense” field is only applicable to delineate between “7” cases (LFA vs.

RMV), “0” cases, or whenever else necessary. Otherwise, it is not a requirement. 5.1.2.1. The “Note” field may be utilized as needed for any other additional




information. 5.1.3. Latent lift location information for every latent print impression scanned must be entered.

This step is taken after the preliminary scan is complete in the “Latent Scanning/Acquisition/Import” section. Click the “Examination Number” button at the top center of the screen, or press Ctrl+X on the keyboard. A text box will appear, and the lift card number and lift location information should be entered here. Click “OK” once completed, and then the final scan of that impression may be performed.

5.2. Ten-Print Card Processing: Detailed instructions as to the entry of ten-print cards into the database may be found in the SPEX Forensics PrintQuest® AFIS Operation Manual v. 2.4, Chapter 5: Ten-Print Card Processing. 5.2.1. Ten-print cards may be manually entered into the database to compare against all unsolved

latent print impressions, as well as to compare against case-specific latent print impressions. Steps for this can be found in the chapter referenced above.

5.2.2. All manually entered ten-print cards not retrievable from NIST may not remain in SPEX after searching has completed. They must be removed immediately.

5.3. Search Results Procedure: Detailed instructions as to the reviewing of results from database searching or ten-print entry may be found in the SPEX Forensics PrintQuest® AFIS Operation Manual v. 2.4, Chapter 6: Search Results & Database Control. 5.3.1. Any AFIS association produced from database searching will be printed out and placed in

the case file. 1.7.1.1. A screenshot containing the Latent Record Info and associated Ten-Print Info will be printed one time per subject, per case.1.7.1.2. A screenshot of the image sheets for each AFIS association will be printed.

6. SAFIS Database Searching

6.1. Detailed instructions as to the entry and searching of latent prints impressions, and review of candidate lists may be found in the Motorola Printrak™ manual.6.1.1. When creating a new case within the “Workflow and Case Selection” step, the following

information will be entered in the “Case ID” field:Example: C11801234AA

C 1 18 01234 AA

CCBI’s Identifier Crime Type IndexYear

(last 2 digits)

CCBI Case #

(to consist of 5 digits)Examiner Initials

6.2. Any AFIS associations produced from database searching will be printed out and placed in the case file.




7. Next Generation Identification Database Searching 7.1. Once a determination has been made that the results from SAFIS database searching are negative,

depending on the latent image quality, persons crimes may be entered into the Federal database (NGI) as appropriate.

7.2. To search impressions in NGI, the SAFIS System (Motorola Printrak™) is used for the initial stages of the process.

7.3. For instructions on encoding latent impressions in SAFIS, see the Motorola Printrak™ manual. 7.3.1. Once encoded, select “Create Search,” which will open the Search Submission screen.7.3.2. On the Search Submission screen, under “Remote Search Database,” choose “IAFIS-

LLFS"7.3.3. Increase # of rotations if orientation is questionable (Set to 12 if you need to search 360)7.3.4. Submit the Search. When you are finished submitting all latent impressions in the case,

close the Latent Station.7.3.5. On the Desktop, open the “ULW Transaction Manager”7.3.6. Select the “Open/Import EBST File” dropdown and choose the “Import EBTS File (Into

Transaction Manager)” option.7.3.7. When the file finder opens, choose “Desktop,” and open the “ULW Submitted” folder. (It

may take the file several minutes to appear in this folder.)7.3.7.1. Open the latent search submission, which is recognizable by the case number, examiner initials, and date appearing in the file name.

7.3.8. To verify that the search was submitted successfully, the Latent Examiner may open the SAFIS Homepage of the Motorola Printrak™ program, and open the “Latent” Tab. When the search disappears from the list, the results will appear in the ULW Transaction Manager thereafter.

7.4. To review results:7.4.1. Open the ULW Transaction Manager

7.4.1.1. Information will appear in the “Date Responded” column when the results have returned.

7.4.2. Select the “SRL Preview” tab in the bottom left corner.7.4.3. Under the “Actions,” select “Compare SRL in CT”7.4.4. The Latent Examiner will then go through the candidate list and make determinations 7.4.5. If the Latent Examiner determines a candidate to be an association, they will select “ID-

Verified by Agency,” print the image sheet, then exit without saving.7.5. When finished viewing the submission and results, the search may be deleted.

8. SICAR Searching8.1. Detailed instructions as to the entry and searching of footwear impressions, and review of results

lists may be found in the Foster + Freeman SICAR® 6 Manual. 8.1.1. Once the program has been opened, in the “New Record” step, the Case Number will be

entered in the following format: 18-1234 (Year-Case #).8.1.1.1. Should a case number be less than four digits, zeros will proceed the number(s).

8.1.2. Any potential associations must be linked, printed out as a “links report,” and placed in the case file.




9. CSIPix® Comparator

9.1. The CSIpix® V4 Comparator software is an application that allows the user to quickly and efficiently analyze, compare and evaluate two side-by-side images without the use of additional photo editing software.

9.2. For steps on how to upload, enhance, compare, annotate and print images, refer to the CSIpix® user manual, located under the “Help” button within the software.

9.3. When an examination is performed using this software, it must be referenced in the Latent Print Examination Note Sheet, under the “Analysis/Comparison” section.

9.4. See Chapter 5, Section 11 for standard database searching, identification and verification markings.

10. Maintenance

10.1. Latent Examiners will document problems, maintenance, and repair of automated system equipment on the Latent Print Unit Maintenance Log. The documentation will include:

10.1.1. The date of equipment problems and maintenance and repair activities. 10.1.2. The name of the person(s) observing and resolving problems, and maintenance and repair activities. 10.1.3. A description detailing problems and maintenance and repair activities.

10.2. The Latent Print Unit Maintenance Log is located on the CCBI Shared Network Drive S:.

11. Limitations

N/A

12. Safety

N/A

13. References

13.1. SPEX Forensics PrintQuest® AFIS Operation Manual v. 2.413.2. Motorola Printrak™ Operation Manual, Version 9.913.3. Foster + Freeman SICAR® 6 Manual13.4. CSIpix® V4 Operation Manual




Revision History

Effective Date VersionNumber

Reason




Issued: June 18, 2018 Chapter: LPTP03Issued By: CCBI Director Version: 3

Chapter 3: Work Process

1. Purpose

This procedure establishes the general guidelines for the work process within the Latent Print Unit.

2. Scope


3. Abbreviations

N/A


N/A

5. Triaging for Database Searching

5.1. Persons crime and rush request cases will be given a primary priority for database entry.5.2. Residential burglaries and property crime cases involving a firearm will receive secondary

priority for database entry.5.3. All other property crimes will receive tertiary priority for database entry.

6. Database Searching

6.1. Latent print impressions received into the Latent Print Unit will be assessed by Latent Examiners to determine if the print is of value for entry into the SPEX AFIS.

6.2. The determination of database searching value will be determined by the Latent Examiner reviewing the evidence. And will include but is not limited to the following:6.2.1. Quality of the impression6.2.2. Level of distortion6.2.3. Observable level 1, level 2 and level 3 detail

6.3. Latent print evidence of value for database searching will be entered into the SPEX database system prior to entry to other database systems. 6.3.1. Property crimes will only be entered into SPEX, but can be searched in SAFIS or NGI at

the request of the submitting agency, Wake County District Attorney’s office or other requesting official. This request can be in the form of an email or documented phone call.

6.4. Latent evidence for persons crimes will be retained in the SPEX system indefinitely, or until advised by the investigating authority that certain cases may be removed from the system.

6.5. When SPEX database search results are determined to be negative, the Latent Examiner will assess the quality of the impression for entry into SAFIS and/or NGI.




6.5.1. The quality threshold for entry into different AFIS’s is different due to variations of searching algorithms. Lower quality latent print impressions may be of value for entry into SPEX, but not always suitable for SAFIS/NGI entry.

6.6. At the conclusion of a database search, Latent Examiners will place their initials and date of the search in the designated area on the latent envelope.6.6.1.If all the latent lifts within an envelope have been determined to be of no value for database

searching, “NDQ”, along with the Latent Examiner’s initials and date will be placed in the designated area on the latent envelope.

7. Obtaining Known Standards

7.1. Known standards are required for subject comparison when a latent print database search yields an association, and when specific subjects are requested for comparison. Standards will be obtained from the following sources:7.1.1. DataWorks Plus NIST Manager 7.1.2. CCBI Records Division (inked original hard copy)7.1.3. SAFIS7.1.4. FBI/CJIS (pending access)

7.2. Standards will be treated as reference materials.7.3. If an identification is made, the known standard or a copy of the known standard will be retained

as a technical record in the case file. 7.4. All original known standards removed from CCBI records division may be temporarily used for

the exam, but the original version must not be retained in the case file.

8. Rapid Identification Notification

8.1. Subject identifications produced from database searches which are related to the following types of crimes will require an email notification known as Rapid ID Notification to be sent to the submitting agency as soon as possible:8.1.1. Residential Burglaries8.1.2. Persons Crimes8.1.3. Other crime types are not subject to a Rapid ID Notification, unless otherwise requested.

8.2. Verification of each subject identification will be completed along with the examination notes prior to dissemination of a Rapid ID Notification.

8.3. A Rapid ID notification e-mail will be sent to the submitting agency notifying them of the subject identification. A copy of the e-mail will be retained in the case file as an administrative record.8.3.1. Rapid ID Notifications will be created and disseminated as follows:

8.3.1.1. The Latent Examiner will submit the case file to a Verifier.8.3.1.2. The Verifier will a review the case file and verify latent identification and create the

Rapid ID e-mail notification using the Rapid Notification Email Form (CCBI-168).8.3.1.3. The verifier will send the Rapid ID e-mail notification to the Latent Examiner and




return the case file to the Latent Examiner.8.3.1.4. The Latent Examiner will review the Rapid ID e-mail and make any necessary administrative corrections and forward the Rapid ID email to the appropriate agency. 8.3.1.5. The Latent Examiner will be responsible for placing a copy of the Rapid ID e-mail in the case file.

8.3.2. Rapid ID Notification emails may not reference more than one case.

9. AFIS Association Examinations

9.1. An AFIS Association (AA) is a determination by a Latent Print Examiner that a search result from an AFIS comparison of a latent impression to standards in an AFIS database has corresponding characteristics sufficient to conclude the impression likely originated from the source in the AFIS database. An AA is not a latent print identification. An AFIS Association is intended as investigative information only.

9.2. Latent Examiners are authorized to perform AA Examinations for:9.2.1. Any property crime case except those cases involving a firearm and residential burglaries,

which will be subjected to a Limited Identification or Full Examination.9.2.2. Any property crime case where the subject generated by AFIS is a victim.9.2.3. Any property or person crime case where the subject generated by AFIS is an investigating

officer or reporting person, based on the information available at the time of the examination.

9.2.4. Any property or person crime case where the subject was previously “Identified” or reported as an AA.

9.3. A Latent Print Unit Forensic Supervisor or Latent Print Unit Technical Leader may approve an AA Examination on a case by case basis:9.3.1. In other laboratory cases involving any property crime where the subject generated by

AFIS is clearly not the subject or target of investigation or prosecution, based on the information available at the time of the examination.

9.3.2. In a person crime which has been authorized by the investigating officer or the District Attorney’s Office.

9.3.3. The Latent Print Unit Forensic Supervisor or Latent Print Unit Technical Leader will document authorization by writing “Approved for AA”, dating and initialing the AFIS database candidate document.

9.4. Any AA reported will include the following: 9.4.1. Subject name.9.4.2. A unique identifying number for the subject such as a:

9.4.2.1. NC SID #9.4.2.2. FBI #9.4.2.3. CCBI Local ID #

9.4.3. Location of the print within the crime scene




9.4.3.1. The location of the print(s) is not required for property crime cases when the subject generated by AFIS and a location have been previously reported.

9.4.3.2. The location descriptions will be reported as listed on latent evidence lift cards or as listed in DCS for digital images.

9.4.3.3. Evidence location descriptions will be verified and reported in one of the following ways:

9.4.3.3.1. Retrieving the latent evidence, verifying the latent impression, and reporting the location as listed on the evidence.

9.4.3.3.2. Referencing the location description listed in SPEX after cross- referencing the agent’s report to ensure consistency.

9.4.3.3.2.1. If a discrepancy exists between the location description listed in SPEX and the location listed in the agent’s report,

the evidence must be retrieved and opened in order to verify the location description.

9.4.3.3.2.2. If a discrepancy exists a supervisor must be notified. It is the responsibility of the supervisor to ensure that any

discrepancy is resolved.

10. Limited Identification Examinations

10.1. Limited Identification Examinations will identify one (1) latent print per subject. Latent Examiners should make an effort to identify each subject from an area of evidentiary value

when practical.10.2. Any additional AFIS associations to the identified subject will be included in the Limited Identification Examination Report. 10.3. Latent Print Examiners are authorized to conduct Limited Identification Examinations only in laboratory cases involving a property crime or a person crime which does not involve a death.10.4. Limited Identification Examinations for cases involving a death require approval from the investigating agency or the prosecuting attorney.10.5. In the event that a Limited Identification and other eligible AA subjects are generated in the same case, subjects may be consolidated into a Limited ID report.

11. Full Case Examinations

11.1. Full Case Examinations will be completed by the Latent Examiners in homicides and/or other types of death investigation cases (unless otherwise requested by the investigating authority), and cases in which a request for comparison was received to compare the latent prints collected against the known prints of specific individuals.11.2. A full case examination requires the complete examination of all latent evidence in a case to all

relevant subject(s) in the case unless otherwise authorized by the submitting agency or the District Attorney.




11.3. If any Latent Examiner has previously made an identification and produced a report in a case, the additional examination will be assigned to the original Latent Examiner when practical.

12. Non-Testimonial Orders (NTO)

12.1. Forensic Supervisors will review the NTO affidavit and application and ensure that the case information and referenced subjects in the narrative match the subject(s), case numbers and victims requested on the Laboratory Request Form.

12.2. If there are any discrepancies in a NTO or if information is not clear in the request, the District Attorney’s Office and the requestor will be notified. 12.3. NTOs must be strictly followed and any information that stems from an AFIS search of a case

that was not specifically referenced in the NTO will not permitted by NC statute to be used in a case examination.

12.4. Any known standards entered into the database as requested in the NTO must be removed from the database repository after the search has concluded.

13. Stop Work Requests

13.1. For all Stop Work Requests, Latent Examiners are required to determine whether the Stop Work Request applies to the entire case or to a specific subject(s) in the case. 13.2. Latent Examiners will ensure all Stop Work Requests clearly document whether the request applies to the entire case or to a specific subject(s) in the case. 13.3. Latent Prints entered into the SPEX AFIS Database may be remove from the database if the Stop Work Request pertains to the entire case.

14. Limitations

N/A

15. Safety

N/A

16. References

N/A




Revision History


Number

Reason


4/17/18 2 9.2.1 revised to allow authorization of property crimes cases9.2.4 added to authorize AA’s for a property or person crime case where the subject was previously identified or reported as an AA9.3.1 revised to allow AA approvals by supervisors or technical leaders in property crimes where subject generated by AFIS is not the subject/target of investigation/prosecution9.3.2 revised to allow AA approvals by supervisors or technical leaders in person crimes with authorization of investigating officer or DA office9.4.3.1 revised for rewordingRemoved section 12 “Reverse AFIS Search Results Examinations”

6/18/18 3 7.1 Addition of “when specific subjects are requested for manual comparison” for known standard requirement8.3.1.2 Removed “Latent Print Unit Rapid Notification template located in the CCBI Report Writing Manual” and replaced with Rapid Notification Email Form (CCBI-168)9.4.3 Updated to address location descriptions for AFIS Associations



Issued: February 5. 2018 Chapter: LPTP04Issued By: CCBI Director Version: 1

Chapter 4: Digital Images

1. Purpose

This procedure establishes process for receipt, searching, and examination of digital images containing latent impressions.

2. Scope


3. Abbreviations

3.1. DCS – Dataworks Plus Digital Crime Scene3.2. DIG - Digital3.3. DUP – Duplicate


4.1. Dataworks Plus Digital Crime Scene4.2. SPEX4.3. SAFIS4.4. NGI4.5. CSIpix®

5. Identifying Digital Images to be Searched

5.1. Photographed latent impressions developed by CCBI Crime Scene Agents are digitally stored in DCS.

5.2. The Forensic Photographer will provide the Latent Examiner with a photo log or contact sheet containing thumbnails of all digital images of latent impressions within the DCS Call Log.

5.3. The Latent Examiner will review all images in the photo log and will indicate on the photo log which images contain latent impressions that may be of potential value for database searching or examination purposes. The following options will be available to the Latent Examiner and will be notated on the Photo Log:

5.3.1. Import the image into SPEX 5.3.2. Export the image onto a USB drive 5.3.3. Enhance the image 5.3.4. Print the image




5.4. Digital images which are of no database quality, no value, or are duplicates will be marked NDQ, NV or DUP respectively on the photo log. Photos may be marked with an overall statement or notated individually.

5.5. The Forensic Photographer or the Latent Examiner will export images from DCS onto a new or wiped USB drive. The Forensic Photographer is responsible for providing USB drives for this purpose.

5.6. A marked copy of the photo log will be returned to the Forensic Photographer. The original Photo Log will be placed in the Latent Examiner’s case file.

6. Searching Digital Images in SPEX

6.1. “DIG” and the Call ID number will be entered in the “Note” field in the “Latent Text Record Input” step. 6.2. Additionally, the unique Digital ID Number as well as any location description of a digital image will be entered in the “Examination Number” step, (See Chapter 2 section 5 of the Latent Print Unit Technical Procedures).

7. Searching Digital Images in SAFIS and NGI

7.1. Refer to the Motorola Printrak™ Manual for steps on how to search images imported from a USB drive.

8. Examination of Digital Images

8.6.1. CSIpix® may be utilized to enhance friction ridge impressions which require digital enhancement or an enhancement may be requested through the Forensic Photography Unit.8.6.2. The image’s unique DCS Digital Image ID Number will be used on note sheets and laboratory reports to identify a digital image that has been examined.

8.6.2.1. The Lift Card number assigned by the Forensic Photographer will be referenced if a hard copy of a digital image is printed for examination purposes.

9. Limitations

NA

10. Safety

N/A




11. References

11.1 Forensic Photography Technical Procedures Manual

Revision History


Number

Reason

2/5/18 1 New 2018 Technical Procedures




Chapter 5: ACE-V and Examination Markings

1. Purpose

This procedure describes the analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification (ACE-V) of latent print and footwear impression evidence and Latent Examiner markings used in the examination process.

2. Scope

This procedure applies to all Latent Examiners utilizing AFIS and the other software systems described in this procedure.

3. Abbreviations

ANALYSIS

ABV Above DSR Disassociated ridges

AGG Aggregate impression(s) DST Distortion

AGR Agree/Agreement DUP Duplicate

AMP Amputation DWN Down

APP Appendage EDG Edges

ART Artifact ENC Enclosure

BIF Bifurcation ENR Ending ridge

BLW Below EXP Excess Powder

BRG Bridge FAL Fault line

BRK Broken FR Fair

BRM Brush Marks FRG Fragmented

BTM Bottom FUR Furrows




BTW Between GD Good

CHD Child GL Gel lift

CHM Chemically developed HOK Hook

CLR Clarity HR Horizontal reversal

CMP Compression HVY Heavy

CNE Cannot exclude ICP Incomplete

CRE Core INR Incipient ridges

CRH Cross hatching INT Intervening

CRO Crossover L1 Level 1 detail

CST Cluster L2 Level 2 detail

DBL Double tap L3 Level 3 detail

DEP Deposition LAT Lateral

DEV Deviation (ridge path deviation) LG Large

DIG Digital image LT Light

DIS Disagreement MED Medium

DIT Distal Transverse (Crease) MIN Minimal

DK Dark MKS Mikrosil lift

DLT Delta MLT Multiple

DOT Dot/s MNT Minutiae

DSC Discrepancy MST Moisture

MV Movement SHR Short ridge

NCP Not compared SM Smearing

NFR Non-friction ridge skin SMA Small

NV No value SML Simultaneous impressions




OK Okay SPR Spur

OPS Opposing ridges SPY Spotty

OV Of value STG Staggered

QU Quality SUF Sufficient

RAL Radial Longitudinal (Crease) SUP Supports

RD Ridge detail TGZ Target zone

RDF Ridge flow TOP Top

RDG Ridges TR Tonal reversal

REC Recurve TRI Trifurcation

RGC Ridge count TX Textured surface

RVS Reverse VOD Void

DATABASES / SEARCHES

DBS- Database search with negative result NDQ Not database quality

DBS Database search NIST Nist archive

FS Federal Search NSQ Not SICAR quality

LS Local Search SIC SICAR

LVS Live scan SS State Search

KNOWNS

Elims Elimination prints KS Known standards

Ink Inked impressions LVS Live scan

KFP Known fingerprints MCS Major case style prints

KFT Known foot prints PMF Post mortem fingers




KLF Known left foot PML Post mortem palms

KPP Known palm prints PMP Post mortem prints

KRF Known right foot

LATENTS

LFP Latent fingerprint LPP Latent palm print

LFT Latent foot print LRD Latent ridge detail

LJT Latent joint

PROCEDURES

AA AFIS Association REC Received

APV Approved REQ Request

COC Chain-of-custody RPT Report

LEC Latent evidence control room TCR Technical Review

LPU Latent Print Unit TFT Transferred to

NTF Notified VFB Verified by

PND Pending

PRINTS

? Unknown/undetermined marking or impression, or questioned anatomical location LL, / Left slant loop

?PT Unknown/questionable pattern type LP Loop

AR Plain arch ONL Outward nose loop

CPD Carpal delta P Palm

CPLW Central pocket loop whorl R Right

CRS Crease(s) RL, \ Right slant loop




DLW Double loop whorl SCR Scar

F Finger SD Extreme side of finger/digit

HTN Hypothenar TA Tented arch

IDL Interdigital palm TN Thenar

INL Inward nose loop TP Tip of finger

JT Joint VES Vestige

L Left WH Whorl

WP Writer’s palm

RESULTS

EXC Exclusion NEG Negative

ID Identified/individualized NID Not identified/individualized

INC Inconclusive NMC Need major case style prints

NBF Need better fingers NPM Need post mortems

NBP Need better palms NTP Need tips

NBS Need better standards VER Verified

FOOTWEAR ABBREVIATIONS

CLC Class characteristics KI Known impression

COR Corresponds with LTS Left shoe

CST Cast MAS Manufacturer size

CUT Cuts PHS Physical size

DES Derivative evidence standards (overlays)

PSS Physical shape

DNC Does not correspond with QI Questioned impression

DSE Design Elements RTS Right shoe




FEA Feathering SHA Shallamach

FWC Footwear comparison SOL Sole

GEL Gel lift SRT Scratches

HEL Heel TOE Toe

IDC Individual characteristics WEP Wear Pattern

FOOTWEAR RESULTS

ACC Association of class characteristics LACC Limited association of class charac.

ELM Elimination LSD Lacks sufficient detail

HDA High degree of association UNS Unsuitable

INA Indications of non-association


4.1. Magnifiers 4.2. Pointers4.3. Comparators 4.4. Fingerprint powders4.5. Lifting tape4.6. Mikrosil4.7. Biofoam4.8. Acetate sheets4.9. Vasoline4.10. Shoe polish4.11. Footwear backing cards4.12. Contact paper4.13. Camera4.14. Dental Stone 4.15. Identicator Kit4.16. Plastic sheeting4.17. Protective personal equipment




5. Case Notes

5.1. The abbreviations listed in Section 3 are the authorized markings and abbreviations that may be used in examination and documentation of latent evidence examinations.

5.2. The following forms will be used by Latent Examiners to document case examinations of latent evidence examinations, as appropriate: 5.2.1. Footwear Examination Note Sheet (CCBI-161), 5.2.2. Latent Print Exam Note Sheet (CCBI-163), 5.2.3. SICAR Database Search Note Sheet (CCBI-165).

6. Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification (ACE-V)

6.1. Analysis is the assessment of a friction ridge impression to determine suitability for comparison. 6.1.1. All ACE-V examinations involve the gathering and use of both qualitative and quantitative data present within a friction ridge impression in order to reach a conclusion.

6.1.2. These examinations include comparison of developed impressions submitted by lift cards, photo, scan, or digital media. 6.1.3. Analysis includes the assessment of each individual friction ridge impression to determine its suitability and sufficiency for comparison. 6.1.4. The assessment includes examination and documentation of the matrix, Substrate, and the presence of levels 1, 2, and 3 detail if present. 6.1.5. Other factors considered include the following:

Quality (clarity) and quantity of detail Anatomical source (finger, palm, foot, toe) Residue/matrix Distortion Deposition Surface/substrate Environment Development medium Preservation method Condition of the friction skin

6.2. Comparison is the direct or side-by-side simultaneous observation of friction ridge detail to determine whether the detail in two impressions is in agreement based upon similarity, sequence and spatial relationship.

6.3. Evaluation is the formulation of a conclusion based upon analysis and comparison of friction ridge impressions. There are three conclusions that can be reached:6.3.1. Identification is the result of the comparison of two friction ridge impressions containing sufficient quality (clarity) and quantity of friction ridge detail in agreement. Identification occurs when a Latent Examiner determines that two friction ridge impressions originated from the same source.




6.3.2. Exclusion is the result of the comparison of two friction ridge impressions containing sufficient quality and quantity of friction ridge detail which is not in agreement. Exclusion occurs when a Latent Examiner determines that two friction ridge impressions originated from different sources.

6.3.3. Inconclusive results when a Latent Examiner is unable to identify or exclude the source of an impression. Inconclusive evaluation results must not be construed as a statement of probability. Probable, possible or likely identification conclusions are outside the acceptable limits of the friction ridge identification science. 6.3.3.1. Inconclusive results will be documented in case notes utilizing the following descriptions:

6.3.3.1.1. A “cannot exclude” result will occur when the latent print has detail consistent with the exemplar or known print; however, it is insufficient to identify the source because of the quality or quantity of the latent print. The selectivity of the available corresponding data is not strong enough to disregard the possibility that another source could have left the print. If the Latent Examiner reaches the “cannot exclude” result, the subject’s name and anatomical region should be clearly indicated in the notes and the notes should also reflect why they could not exclude the person.

6.3.3.1.2. An “incomplete” result will occur when the exemplar prints are inadequate in quantity and/or quality. For each latent print compared with “incomplete” results, the notes will reflect the subject’s name, whether any detail was found consistent with the exemplars, and the additional exemplars needed to complete the comparison.

6.3.3.1.3. A “not compared” result will occur if a latent print contains an anatomical region that is not recorded in the exemplar prints, or there are no exemplar prints available, therefore a comparison cannot be conducted. For each latent print “not compared”, the notes should reflect the name(s) of the subject(s) not compared and the exemplar prints needed to perform a comparison.

6.4. Verification is the independent examination by another qualified Latent Examiner resulting in the same conclusion. Verification occurs when another qualified Latent Examiner conducts an independent ACE process on a latent print identification, and comes to the same conclusion as the primary Latent Examiner.6.4.1. All identifications and exclusions must be verified. 6.4.2. Other conclusions are exempt from verification.

7. Consultations




7.1. A consultation is an interaction initiated by the Latent Examiner during the process of an examination or an interaction initiated by the Verifier during the verification process that leads directly to a decision or that directly alters a decision.

7.2. All consultations will be documented in the primary Latent Examiner’s case notes and will include: specific impression(s) reviewed, nature and result of the consultation (e.g., impression in question), initials of examiner assisting in the consultation, and the date of the consultation.

7.3. Latent Examiner Trainees may not provide consultations.7.4. The Latent Examiner who conducts a consultation may also verify the identification.

8. Conflict Resolution

8.1. Should a Verifier or Technical Reviewer be undecided about or disagree with an identification, exclusion, or inconclusive made by an Examiner, the impression in question will be turned over to a Forensic Supervisor of Latent Print Technical Leader for review.

8.2. The Forensic Supervisor or Latent Print Technical Leader will evaluate the conclusion and determine whether the indecision or disagreement is justifiable.

8.2.1. If the indecision or disagreement is justifiable, the conclusion will be reported as “Inconclusive” by the Examiner.

8.2.2. If the indecision or disagreement is clearly not justifiable the conclusion will be considered a nonconformity and the laboratory administrative procedure for Corrective and

Preventative Action for a nonconformity will be applied. 8.3. All details of the indecision or disagreement during Conflict Resolutions and the remedies

determined will be documented. 8.3.1. Conflict Resolutions arising during verification will be dated and documented on the case

note form.8.3.2. Conflict Resolutions arising during Technical Review will be dated and documented on the Lab Technical and Admin Review Form (CCBI-071).8.3.3. The Forensic Supervisor or Latent Print Technical Leader, the Examiner, the Verifier

and/or Technical Reviewer will initial the documentation.

9. Erroneous Conclusions

9.1. Erroneous conclusions occur after the ACE-V process is complete. 9.2. An erroneous conclusion occurs when a subsequent conclusion is determined, which is contrary

to the reported conclusion of a completed examination. 9.3. Any suspected erroneous conclusion or erroneous decision by an Examiner or Verifier will be

treated as a potential nonconformity and the laboratory administrative procedure for Corrective and Preventative Action will apply.

10. Footwear Examination




10.1. Latent Examiners shall rely on generally accepted documentation and the ACE-V methodology when conducting footwear examinations.10.2. For the documentation of questioned impressions, the Latent Examiner shall document the

evidence item number, particularly describing details of the impression and the type of surface or medium on which the impression was submitted, and shall mark each item with the Examiner’s initials and date in manner not to hinder the evidentiary value of the impression.

10.3. For the documentation of known shoes, the Latent Examiner conducting the examination will document the shoe information to include brand, size, outsole design, condition, any other particularly describing details and from whom the shoe was collected.

10.4. For the creation of known footwear standards, the Latent Examiner will prepare known footwear standards from all submitted known shoes that will be used for examination purposes when necessary for comparison. 10.4.1. Standards collected/prepared will be considered evidence, and will be documented and

transferred accordingly. The Latent Examiner preparing the known standards will photographically document the original condition of the known shoe prior to creating the known standard. Subsequent documentation will be collected describing the procedure and method used to prepare the known standard.

10.4.2. Since the various methods are non-destructive and not sequence dependent, the Latent Examiner will choose and apply techniques as necessary to maximize results.

10.5. Collection Methods for Known Footwear Standards: 10.5.1. Biofoam may be used to create a three-dimensional representation of the known shoe.

Biofoam is a material which can be compressed by the known shoe creating an impression in the foam. Then, a casting medium (such as dental stone or Mikrosil) is poured/applied to the indented portion of the Biofoam, and is allowed to dry. Once dry, the cast is removed and can be utilized as a known standard for comparison against the questioned impressions. 10.5.1.1. To mix Dental Stone, place Dental Stone powder in a gallon-sized

plastic bag. Use as much Dental Stone powder as you think is necessary to fill the impression. Mix with just enough water to make the Dental Stone the consistency of pancake batter. Gently pour the Dental Stone into the Biofoam impression. Carefully agitate the top layer of Dental Stone to try and remove any air bubbles. The Dental Stone needs at least one hour of drying before it should be handled, and may require as many as 24 hours to dry thoroughly. After the Dental Stone is dry, remove the cast from the Biofoam and gently clean the cast.

10.5.1.2. To mix Mikrosil, mix the putty and catalyst on a mixing card with a spatula and apply it to the surface being cast.

10.5.2. Identicator Kit is an inkless recording system that allows for the recording of impressions for known standards. The outsoles of the known shoes are pressed against a pad containing an inkless chemical residue. Once the outsoles are coated with the residue, they are pressed against a white backing card and the images of the outsoles




appear. 10.5.3. Fingerprint powder and lifting tape is a commonly used method of creating known

standards for footwear examination. A thin coat of fingerprint powder is applied to the outsole of the known shoes, and then the adhesive side of lifting tape is placed over the entire surface of the outsoles. The tape is slowly peeled off the outsole, revealing an image of the outsole. The tape is then placed on a white backing card. It is important to note from exactly which shoe the image was collected, as the known standards will appear the reverse of the actual item. Once the known standards are generated, photocopies on clear acetate sheets are made to create over-lays.

10.5.4. The sole of the known shoes may be coated with Vaseline, or a similar transfer medium, and the shoe is pressed against a white backing card. Then the white backing card is processed with fingerprint powder revealing the impression of the outsole. The impression is then covered with clear tape to protect and preserve the impression.

10.5.5. A method similar to using fingerprint powder and lifting tape is the use of ink/fingerprint powder and white contact paper. A thin coat of ink or fingerprint powder is applied to the outsoles of the known shoes, and then the adhesive side of the white contact paper is placed over the entire surface of the shoe’s outsoles. The contact paper is peeled away from the outsole revealing the impression. A protective, transparent sheet of plastic is placed over the impression.

10.5.6. The known standards must be an exact replication of the outsole of the known shoe to allow for a conclusive examination with the questioned impression the known

standards must be free of artifacts that could affect the examination process. 10.6. The ACE-V methodology will be used in all footwear examinations. 10.6.1. Analyze the questioned impression of evidence for information regarding the

quality, quantity, clarity and comparative potential. For cases in which multiple questioned impressions are present, each questioned impression should be labeled to distinguish it from other impressions. Utilizing a lettering or numbering scheme to separate questioned impressions is recommended, as long as the scheme can clearly delineate each questioned impression independently and provide clarity regarding its analysis, comparison, and evaluation in the case notes and report.

10.6.2. Factors to consider during analysis include the following: Quality (clarity) and quantity of detail Residue/matrix Deposition Surface/substrate Environment Development medium Preservation method

10.6.3. Consider enhancement potential when conducting the above-mentioned analysis10.6.4. Note the presence or absence of class characteristics




10.6.5. Note the design, physical size, physical shape and wear features.10.6.6. Analyze the known impression for the same information

10.7. Compare the items using a direct or side-by-side observation between the questioned and known impressions to the corresponding/non-corresponding information.

10.7.1. Note design, physical size, and physical shape correspondence/non - correspondence between the questioned and known impressions.10.7.2. Note the position and degree of general wear correspondence/non-correspondence between the unknown and known impressions. Document and evaluate possible wear changes between date of crime and date shoes were recovered.10.7.3. Note the presence or absence of individual characteristics (cuts, scrapes, wear pattern that causes unique tearing, etc.). Such characteristics should be noted according to their position, size, shape, orientation and clarity.

10.8. Evaluation is the formulation of a conclusion based upon analysis and comparison the known shoe and unknown shoe impressions. The following are opinions that can be rendered:

10.8.1. Footwear Conclusions:10.8.1.1. Lacks Sufficient Detail: No comparison was conducted: the examiner

determined there were no discernible questioned footwear impressions or features present. This opinion applies when there is insufficient detail to conduct any comparison. In the opinion of the examiner, an impression was either not present or the impression lacked sufficient detail for any comparison. No comparison was conducted: the examiner determined that there was insufficient detail in the questioned impression for a meaningful conclusion. This opinion only applies to the known footwear that was examined and does not necessarily preclude future examinations with other known footwear.

10.8.1.2. Exclusion: This is the highest degree of non-association expressed in footwear and examinations. Sufficient differences were noted in the comparison f class and/or randomly acquired characteristics between the questioned impression and the known footwear. In the opinion of the examiner, the particular known footwear was not the source of, and did not make, the impression.

10.8.1.3. Indications of Non-Association: The questioned impression exhibits dissimilarities when compared to the known footwear; however, the details or features were not sufficiently clear to permit an exclusion. In the opinion of the examiner, dissimilarities between the questioned impression and the known footwear indicated non-association; however, the details or features were not sufficient to permit an exclusion.

10.8.1.4. Limited Association of Class Characteristics: Some similar class characteristics were present; however, there were significant limiting factors in the questioned impression that did not permit a stronger association between the questioned impression and the known footwear. These factors may include but were not limited to: insufficient detail, lack of scale, improper position of scale, improper




photographic techniques, distortion or significant lengths of time between the date of the occurrence and when the footwear was recovered that could account for a different degree of general wear. No confirmable differences were observed that could exclude the footwear. In the opinion of the examiner, factors (such as those listed above) have limited the conclusion to a general association of some class characteristics. Other footwear with the same class characteristics observed in the impressions is included in the population of possible sources.

10.8.1.5. Association of Class Characteristics: The class characteristics of both design and physical size must correspond between the questioned impression and the known footwear. Correspondence of general wear may also be present. In the opinion of the examiner, the known footwear is a possible source of the questioned impression and therefore could have produced the impression. Other footwear or tires with the same class characteristics observed in the impression are included in the population of possible sources.

10.8.1.6. High degree of association: The questioned impression and known footwear must correspond in the class characteristics of design, physical size, and general wear. For this degree of association there must also exist: (1) wear that, by virtue of its specific location, degree and orientation make it unusual and/or (2) one or more randomly acquired characteristics. In the opinion of the examiner, the characteristics observed exhibit strong associations between the questioned impression and known footwear; however, the quality and/or quantity were insufficient for an identification. Other footwear with the same class characteristics observed in the impression are included in the population of possible sources only if they display the same wear and/or randomly acquired characteristics observed in the questioned impression.

10.8.1.7. Identification: This is the highest degree of association expressed by a footwear and tire impression examiner. The questioned impression and the known footwear or tire share agreement of class and randomly acquired characteristics of sufficient quality and quantity. In the opinion of the examiner, the particular known footwear was the source of, and made, the questioned impression. Another item of footwear being the source of the impression is considered a practical impossibility.

10.9. Footwear Review/Verification 10.9.1. All footwear cases/footwear identifications are to be reviewed and/or verified by another

qualified examiner. Evidence Items which are transferred within the Latent Print Unit are not necessarily subject to the criteria of the sealing and marking of seals of evidence packages.

10.9.2. The verifying examiner will not be required to write a formal report in the case. However, the verifying examiner may be called to testify in the case in the absence of




the primary Latent Examiner. 10.9.3. In the event of an erroneous identification decision by a Latent Examiner and/or Verifier,

the unit supervisor(s) and/or the unit technical leader(s) will be immediately notified, and the Corrective and Preventative Action Policy will apply.

11. Examination Markings

11.1. Latent Examiners will initial all latent envelopes / containers that come into their possession in a case and ensure latent envelopes / containers are labeled with the CCBI case number and the CCBI item number.

11.2. Latent Examiners will initial each lift card examined and ensure the lift card is labeled with the CCBI case number and lift card number.

11.3. In both latent and footwear cases, the standard markings on the lift card / photograph evidence by the Latent Examiners will consist of, at a minimum the unique CCBI case number and the Latent Examiner’s initials.

11.4. SICAR Database Markings11.4.1. When questioned impressions have been entered into the SICAR database system for

searching, place a dot and the initials of the Latent Examiner near each questioned impression searched. Footwear markings, otherwise, do not adhere to the below procedures.

11.5. AFIS Database Searching Markings11.5.1. When latent print impressions on lift cards, hard copy photographs of digital images

containing latent print impressions have been entered into a latent print database system for searching the following markings will be used on the lift cards or a hard copy photograph of a digital image containing the latent print to indicate which prints were entered into which database system:

1.1.1.1. Local Search = a dot is placed over the top of the print (or “LS” for Photo Logs)

1.1.1.2. State Search = “SS” is placed over the top of the print, near the dot1.1.1.3. Federal Search = “FS” is placed over the top of the print, near the “SS”

11.5.2. Digital images imported directly into AFIS will be marked on a printed photo log. 11.5.3. If the anatomical position of the impression cannot be ascertained, place “?” near the

database search markings listed above. If an impression is searched as both a finger and palm, “F/P” will be placed near the database search markings. If a digital version of a latent image is searched, and a hard copy exists, “DIG” will be placed on the hard copy. The markings will also include the initials of the Latent Examiner who searched the print. There will be no examination markings made on the lift cards for latent prints screened for database search.

11.6. Examination Markings




11.6.1. Latent Examiners will indicate a latent fingerprint of value for comparison, place a semi-circle, “ ͡ ”, over the top of the print to demonstrate the correct anatomical position of the finger.

11.6.2. To indicate a latent palm print of value for comparison, place a bracket, “˽”, at the base of each latent palm print to demonstrate the correct anatomical position of the palm.

11.6.3. To indicate joints or other unknown impressions of value for comparison, place parallel lines, “||”, alongside the impressions.

11.6.4. If the anatomical position of the impression cannot be ascertained, place or “?” near the semi-circle or a bracket, parrellel comparison markings.

11.6.5. When indicating an identification on the latent lift card, place the identification symbol, “Ø”, near the print that was identified.

11.6.6. Simultaneous impression marking consists of connected semi-circle formations placed over the top of the impressions. The markings will indicate the correct anatomical position for the prints.11.6.6.1.1. The simultaneous markings should only be placed over the impressions when

the latent prints are being identified to an individual, and not as part of the analysis process.

11.6.7. If there are no latent prints of value to identify, indicate such by placing “NV” at a corner of the lift that is being referenced as no value.

11.6.8. The following information must be placed on the lift card and CSIpix hard copy printouts containing identifications:11.6.8.1. Finger number/palm11.6.8.2. Subject identified11.6.8.3. Ø11.6.8.4. Date the identification was effected11.6.8.5. Initials of the Latent Examiner

11.6.9. Identification markings will be as close as possible to the latent print identified and will ensure the markings are permanent in so far as possible.

11.7. Verification of Identification Markings11.7.1. The Verifier will place the following information on the lift card and CSIpix hard copy

printouts containing identifications: 11.7.1.1. Finger number/palm11.7.1.2. Subject identified11.7.1.3. Ø11.7.1.4. “V” encircled 11.7.1.5. Date of the verification11.7.1.6. Initials of the Verifier

11.7.2. The known standard finger/palm print card must also be marked to indicate the approximate location of area utilized for the identification.

11.8. Ten Print Card Markings




11.8.1. Examiners and Verifiers will place the following information on the ten print cards for identifications and verifications:11.8.1.1. Ø11.8.1.2. Initials of the Latent Examiner/Verifier11.8.1.3. Date of the identification/verification11.8.1.4. For verification only: “V” encircled

12. Limitations

12.1. A set quantity of characteristics is not required by the CCBI Latent Print Unit to determine the value of a latent impression or to effect identifications.

13. Safety

13.1. Use of personal protective equipment as necessary during the creation of known footwear standards.

14. References

1.1. Advances in Fingerprint Technology, 2nd Ed., Henry C. Lee & R. E. Gaensslen, 20011.2. Friction Ridge Skin: Comparison and Identification of Fingerprints, James F. Cowger, 19831.3. ISO/IEC 17025-General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration

Laboratories, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. 1.4. The Science of Fingerprints, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 19841.5. Scott’s Fingerprint Mechanics, Robert D. Olsen, 19781.6. SWGFAST, Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis Approved Guidelines &

Friction Ridge Examination Methodology for Latent Examiners 1.7. SWGFAST, Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions.1.8. SWGFAST, Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and

Verification.

1.9. Manual of Fingerprint Development Techniques, 2nd Ed., British1.10. Home Office, Police Scientific Development Branch, 2000.1.1. Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced

Ridgeology, David Ashbaugh, 19991.2. Documenting and Reporting Inconclusive Results; Maceo, Alice, Journal of Forensic

Identification, 61 (3), 2011\2271.3. Footwear Impression Evidence: Detection, Recovery, and Examination, 2nd Edition, William J.

Bodziak, 2000.1.4. Shoe Outsoles as Applicable in Footwear Impression Comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences

September 1988; 33(5).14.1. Recommended Course of Study for Footwear &Tire Track Examiners, International




Association for Identification.14.2. SWGTREAD, Guide for the Examination of Footwear and Tire Impression Evidence14.3. SWGTREAD, Scientific Working Group for Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence, Published

Standards.14.4. SWGTREAD, Range of Conclusions Standards for Footwear and Tire Impression Examinations

(03/2013)14.5. Recommended Course of Study for Footwear &Tire Track Examiners , International

Association for Identification14.6. Footwear Identification, Michael J. Cassidy, 198014.7. Footwear Impression Evidence: Detection, Recovery, and Examination, 2nd Edition, William J.

Bodziak, 199914.8. SWGTREAD, Guide for the Preparation of Test Impressions for Footwear and Tires

Revision History


Number

Reason


3/12/2018 2 Updated Conflict Resolution (section 8) and Erroneous Conclusion (section 9) for clarification of process, definition, and documentation

4/17/18 3 6.4.1 added exclusions to require verifications11.5.3 last sentence changed from “additional” to “examination” markings made on lift cards

6/18/18 4 5.2 Removed Database Search Note Sheet (CCBI-160) and LP Examination Single ID Note Sheet (CCBI-166)




Chapter 6: Case File Reviews and Reports

1. Purpose

This procedure establishes additional technical review and reporting requirements for the Latent Print Unit.

2. Scope


3. Abbreviations

3.1. TCR – Technical Review3.2. AGR – Agree3.3. NDQ – No Database Quality


N/A

5. Technical Reviews

5.1. A minimum of 25% of latent print cases received each day will be flagged for technical review.5.2. Cases will be flagged during the triage of daily casework. 5.3. Flagged cases will be recorded in the Technical Review Spreadsheet, located on the CCBI Shared

Network Drive S:. 5.4. Cases involving persons crimes may be given priority over cases involving property crimes for

assignment of technical review. 5.5. When a latent print case has been flagged for technical review, “TCR” will be clearly written on

the front of the latent evidence envelope and on the case file folder. 5.6. When a case has been flagged, any subsequent examinations performed will be technically

reviewed.5.7. Footwear cases and Ten Print Examinations will be 100% technically reviewed. 5.8. Single database generated AFIS Associations will be reviewed and agreed upon by two

examiners. 5.8.1. The Examiners this will document the agreement by marking “AGR” and their initials on the AFIS image sheet.

5.9. The technical reviewer and the latent print verifier may not be the same individual.




5.10. Latent print and footwear examination specific aspects of the technical review, which must be reviewed when applicable, by the technical reviewer include:

5.10.1. Latent prints / questioned impressions correctly marked for database searching, and the same information is referenced in the database search note sheet, and the note sheet information is reflected in the report 5.10.2. Evidence envelopes marked with database, or NDQ, and searching date/s 5.10.3. Accurate markings (including verification markings) on lift cards / questioned

impressions, and known standards 5.10.4. ACE notations are accurate5.10.5. All note sheets complete and mirrored in report to include:

5.10.5.1. All evidence items (including digital images) 5.10.5.2. Reference materials listed5.10.5.3. Condition of the evidence as sealed or unsealed

5.10.6. All identifications and exclusions were verified, and verification statement in report is accurate

5.11. Technical review and administrative review will be completed at the same time by the same individual, when possible.

6. Examinations and Reports

6.1. General Report Format template will be used for all laboratory reports issued by the Latent Print Unit.

6.2. The Rapid Notification Email Form (CCBI-168) will be used for Rapid Notifications. 6.3. The following additional information shall be added to the General Report Format template

when applicable. 6.3.1. Report the following in the “Items Submitted” section, when applicable:

6.3.1.1. ---Latent Evidence---

Lift Card(s) <insert range>

Call ID # _ / Digital Image ID #_<Insert total # of digital images>

6.3.1.2. ---Known Standards---

Subject: <insert full subject name><Unique ID Type>: <insert unique ID number>Date Fingerprinted: <insert date> (applicable for Ten Print Examinations only)




6.3.1.3. Footwear Examinations

---Questioned Impression(s)---

<Insert item number(s) and description(s)>

---Known Standards---

<Insert item number(s) and description(s)>Sub-Item(s) Created for Examination: <insert item number(s) and description(s)>

6.3.2. The “Type Examination Requested” will be reported as follows: 6.3.2.1. Database Searching – All latent evidence received by the Latent Print Unit is

reviewed to determine value for AFIS searching.6.3.2.2. AFIS Association - An association based upon an AFIS search. AN

AFIS ASSOCIATION IS PROVIDED AS AN INVESTIGATIVE LEAD ONLY. AN AFIS ASSOCIATION ALONE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR WARRANTS OR COURT RELATED PURPOSES. AN AFIS ASSOCIATION IS NOT A LATENT PRINT IDENTIFICATION.

6.3.2.3. Limited Identification – An identification of one (1) latent print per subject. 6.3.2.4. Full Case Comparison – An analysis and comparison of all latent evidence to all

known standards.6.3.2.5. Ten Print Examination 6.3.2.6. Shoeprint Image Capture and Retrieval (SICAR) Database Search- Footwear

impressions are searched in a database that contains manufacturer information, including outsole patterns, to aid in identifying potential make and/or model of footwear

6.3.2.7. Footwear Examination

6.3.3. The “Results and Conclusions” will be reported as follows, when applicable:

6.3.3.1. ---AFIS Searches--- Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS): A computerized

fingerprint storage, matching, and retrieval system.

Local Database: Lift Card(s)/ Digital Image ID #(s) <Insert lift card /Digital Image ID number(s)>

State Database: Lift Card(s)/ Digital Image ID #(s) <Insert lift card /Digital Image ID number(s)>

Federal Database: Lift Card(s)/ Digital Image ID #(s) <Insert lift card /Digital Image ID number(s)>

Not Database Quality: Lift Card(s)/Digital Image ID #(s)/Call ID# <Insert lift card number(s)/Digital Image ID#(s)/Call ID#>

Search Date(s): <Insert search dates for the searches conducted>

6.3.3.2. ---AFIS Association(s)---




A determination that a search result from an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) search has sufficient corresponding characteristics to conclude the impression likely originated from the source in the AFIS database.

Subject: < Insert subject LASTNAME >Lift Card #/Digital Image ID#_: “<Insert location of latent impression>”

6.3.3.3. ---Identification(s)---The subject was identified as the source of the latent impression through Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V)

Subject: < Insert subject LASTNAME >Lift Card #/Digital Image ID#_: “<Insert location of latent impression>”Identified: 1X

6.3.3.4.---Exclusion(s) & Inconclusive(s)---Exclusion - The subject was eliminated as the source of the latent impression.Inconclusive - The subject was not identified or excluded as the source of a latent impression.

Lift Card #/Digital Image ID#_: “<Insert location of latent impression>”Excluded: <Insert subject(s) LASTNAME>Inconclusive: <Insert subject(s) LASTNAME> <Insert reason for inconclusive>

6.3.3.5.---No Value Latent Evidence---The latent impressions have no value for comparison or identification.

Lift Card #/Digital Image ID#_: “<Insert location of latent impression>” Call ID#

6.3.3.6. Ten Print Examination Result:

The following known standards were compared to one another and were determined to have originated from the same source <insert card dates>

The following known standard(s) was/were compared to the other/one anotherand was/were determined to NOT have originated from the same source

<insert card dates>

6.3.3.7. SICAR Search Result:

Item/Lift Card/Image #_, has characteristics consistent with: Brand: <Insert brand name>Model: <insert model name>




Item/Lift Card/Image ID #_: The brand/model could not be determined; however, the questioned footwear impression(s) may be submitted for

manual comparison against known footwear standards.

6.3.3.8. Footwear Examinations results and conclusions will be reported as free text.6.3.3.8.1. The following definitions will be incorporated into free text results,

when applicable based upon reported conclusions:6.3.3.8.1.1. Lacks Sufficient Detail (No comparison was conducted

because there were no discernible questioned footwear impressions or features present)

6.3.3.8.1.2. Exclusion (the particular known footwear was not the source of, and did not make, the impression)

6.3.3.8.1.3. Indications of Non-Association (dissimilarities between the questioned impression and the known footwear indicated non-association; however, the details or features were not sufficient to permit an exclusion)

6.3.3.8.1.4. Limited Association of Class Characteristics (Some similar class characteristics were present; however, there were significant limiting factors in the questioned impression that did not permit a stronger association between the questioned impression and the known footwear)

6.3.3.8.1.5. Association of Class Characteristics (the known footwear is a possible source of the questioned impression and therefore could have produced the impression. Other footwear with the same class characteristics observed in the impression are included in the population of possible sources)

6.3.3.8.1.6. High degree of association (the characteristics observed exhibit strong associations between the questioned impression and known footwear; however, the quality and/or quantity were insufficient for an identification)

6.3.3.8.1.7. Identification (the particular known footwear was the source of, and made, the questioned impression. Another item of footwear being the source of the impression is considered a practical impossibility)

6.3.4. The following additional information statements may be used in the “Results and Conclusions” section of the lab report, when applicable:

6.3.4.1.---Additional Information---

6.3.4.1.1. Lift cards which contain latent print impressions with identifications, exclusions, or inconclusive results may also contain additional

latent impressions that are of no value for comparison or identification.




6.3.4.1.2. < Insert subject(s) LASTNAME >was excluded as the source of the latent print impressions collected from the interior surface(s).

6.3.4.1.3. The examination of the latent print impressions from the interior surface(s), against the known standards of < Insert subject(s)

LASTNAME >, is inconclusive due to <insert reason>.6.3.4.1.4. The latent print evidence collected from the interior surface(s)

contained insufficient friction ridge detail for comparison.6.3.4.1.5. No latent print evidence was collected from the interior surface(s).6.3.4.1.6. A previous identification was made to a different subject from a latent

print impression collected from the interior surface. See latent print supplement dated <insert date(s)>.

6.3.5. Report the following in the “Disposition” section, when applicable:6.3.5.1. The following evidence was returned to the submitting agency: Item #_

6.3.5.2. The above/remaining evidence has been retained on file at CCBI.6.3.5.3. No further action will be taken in this case unless a completion

request is received. For further examination of the evidence in this case, email [email protected]. Enter “COMPLETE <insert “LIMITED” or “AA”>” and the CCBI case number in the subject line of the email. Attach a completed CCBI Laboratory Request for Examination Form. On the form, list the subject name(s) and a unique ID# for which the completion is requested.

6.3.5.4. Forensic Examiner <Insert examiner name>, <insert certification(s)> independently verified the <insert conclusion(s)>.

7. Limitations

N/A

8. Safety

N/A

9. References

N/A




Revision History


Number

Reason


3/12/18 2 Updated 5.9 to no longer allow for a technical reviewer and verifier to be the same individualUpdated 5.1 to make a minimum of 25% of latent print cases received daily to be flagged for technical review

6/18/18 3 5.10.6 added “and exclusions”Added new information for the structuring of latent unit reports to section 6. Removed mention of stop works – addressed in LAPM.




Chapter 7: Collection of Major Case Style Impressions and Processing Hands and Feet of Deceased Individuals

1. Purpose

This procedure establishes the process for collecting of major case style impressions and the

processing of hands and feet of deceased persons.

2. Scope


3. Abbreviations

3.1. OCME – The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner


4.1. Personal Protective Equipment (i.e., Eye protection, footwear covers, gloves, face shield visor,

surgical mask, and lab coat or apron)

4.2. Disinfectant cleaning agent

4.3. Biohazard labels

4.4. Tissue builder and syringe(s)

4.5. Ethyl or isopropyl alcohol

4.6. Mild soap

4.7. Salt/Fabric softener (Downey)/water mixture (1tbsp. table salt, 25ml Downey, 500ml water)

4.8. 10% bleach solution

4.9. Scalpel handle(s) and scalpel blade(s)

4.10. Fingerprint powder (dark)

4.11. Fingerprint brush/wand/cotton




4.12. Fingerprint ink

4.13. Ink slab

4.14. Postmortem printing spoon

4.15. White contact paper

4.16. Fingerprint cards, white paper, clear acetate sheets, clear plastic sheets

4.17. Soft bristled brush

4.18. Digital camera

4.19. Measuring device

5. Collection of Major Case Style Impressions

5.1. The impressions will be collected as evidence items in the case, and a Technical Field Assistance

report will be generated.

5.2. Methods for the collection of major case style impressions and post mortem impressions are:

5.2.1. Fingerprint Powder Method

5.6.1.1. Apply fingerprint powder evenly to all the surfaces of friction ridge skin. The

powder is best applied with cotton swabs.

5.6.1.2. Affix paper directly to the areas of the skin coated with powder.

5.6.1.3. Slowly peeled away revealing the friction ridge impressions.

5.6.1.4. Apply the contact paper clear acetate sheets or clear plastic sleeves to preserve

the images.

5.2.2. Fingerprint Ink Method

5.6.2.1. Apply fingerprint ink to the skin using an ink roller, or by pressing the friction

ridge skin against an ink pad (the ink is best applied using an ink roller).

5.6.2.2. Press the skin against a white or light-colored paper or fingerprint card to capture

the impressions.

5.6.2.3. Ink post-mortem impressions are best captured using a post-mortem print spoon

and slivers of paper.

5.3. These methods can be used multiple times to capture the best possible impressions.

5.4. They may also be used in conjunction with one another.




5.5. Document from where each impression was collected and the finger/palm from which they

originated on the medium capturing the impression.

6. Processing of Hands and Feet of Deceased Individuals

6.1. The processing and collection of post-mortems within the CCBI laboratory will be completed in the CCBI Wet Lab (Room C1379) in the fume hood, or in a CCBI garage bay vehicle garage utilizing the ventilation air tube devices if C1379 is unavailable or not practical.

6.2. Personal protective equipment will be utilized by the Latent Examiner.

6.3. Steps to be taken when processing and/or collecting post-mortem impressions:

6.3.1. Cover the work area in the fume hood and on the counter space using a clean paper liner.

6.3.2. Place any container with the body parts t in the sink if possible.

6.3.3. Remove the body parts from the container.

6.3.4. If soiled, rinse gently with water and mild soap. A soft bristled brush may be used to

attempt to dislodge the debris from the friction ridge surfaces.

6.3.5. Remove the moisture from rinsed parts, using disposable paper towels, then allow the

items to air dry in the fume hood.

6.3.6. The container, lid, and any other substances contained within (i.e. fluids) should be placed

in the sink when possible.

6.3.7. Once the parts are dry, inspect all surfaces thoroughly for areas of significant friction ridge

detail.

6.3.8. Apply either fingerprint powder or fingerprint ink to any significant friction ridge skin

areas.

6.3.9. If the hands/feet are shriveled, but ridge detail is still present, they may be rehydrated

using water, a soap/water mix, or fabric softener/water mix.

6.3.10. A commercial tissue builder may be injected into the fingers or palms using a syringe.

6.4.10.1. Inject tissue builder into the tips of the fingers or the side of the palm so as not

to destroy any ridge detail.

6.4.10.2. Inject enough tissue builder to add pliability and restore the finger/palm to the

approximate original state.




6.4.10.3. If the tissue builder injection or soaking is successful, the remains may then be

inked or powdered.

6.3.11. If rehydration is unsuccessful the remains may be rinsed and patted dry, and the skin may

be removed according to the following steps:

6.4.11.1. Using a scalpel handle and blade, carefully and slowly remove the layers of skin

containing ridge details as one solid sheet or large pieces.

6.4.11.2. Place each piece of skin in a container and is label as to its origin. In some

instances, the remains may be in such a state of decomposition that the

finger/palm skin may be removed without an attempt first being made to take

the impressions with the skin attached to the hands.

6.4.11.3. Each piece of skin will then be photographed with a measuring device, inked,

and/or powdered as referenced in the procedures mentioned above.

6.4.11.4. If necessary, the skin may be placed over the gloved fingers and/or hands of the

Latent Examiner to assist in the capture of the best possible impressions.

6.3.12. Once the best possible impressions have been collected, the remains and any additional

items produced because of the processing (i.e. skin and/or palm pieces) will be

returned to the original container.

6.3.13. The container will then be sealed appropriately.

6.3.14. Place the container in the refrigeration until it can be returned to a representative of the

contributing agency.

7. Limitations

7.1. Decomposition may cause slippage or tearing of the skin and preclude the collection of latent

prints.

7.2. Poor quality of the remains of the deceased person may preclude collection of latent prints.

8. Safety

8.1. Latent Examiners responding to the OCME will remain cognizant of potential biohazards when

collecting prints.




8.2. Evidence packaging and materials containing post-mortem prints will be clearly labeled as

“biohazard”.

8.3. Latent Examiners will discard all used materials in marked biohazard bags.

8.4. Latent Examiners will clean all work surfaces and used instruments thoroughly with a 10%

bleach solution after processing.

8.5. Personal protective equipment will be utilized by the Latent Examiner when collecting post

mortem prints.

8.6. The consumption of food and/or drinks is prohibited during the processing of human remains.

9. References

9.1. Buckingham, A. “The Use of Plastic Receiving Surfaces in the Fingerprinting of Mummified

Finger.” Journal of Forensic Identification. Vol. 44,3:251-253 (June 1994)

9.2. Cutro Sr., Brent T., The Fingerprint Sourcebook, Chapter 4, Recording Living and Postmortem

Friction Ridge Exemplars, International Association for Identification, et al., 2001, pages 4.3-

4.17.

9.3. Cowger, J.F., Taking Inked Prints, Friction Ridge Skin, Comparison and Identification of

Fingerprints, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1993, pages 9-33.

9.4. “FBI Problems and Practices in Fingerprinting the Dead.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

(Revised May 1977).

9.5. “Proper Procedure for Taking Major Case Prints.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, (July 1976).

9.6. Futrell, I. “Hidden Evidence: Latent Prints on Human Skin.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

(1996): 1-4.

9.7. “Identifying Disaster Victims.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. (Revised February 1986): 1-4.

Olson, Robert, Scott’s Fingerprint Mechanics, Charles C. Thomas Publisher: Springfield, IL, 1978.




Revision History


Number

Reason

2/5/18 1 New 2018 Technical Procedure




Chapter 8: Glossary

1. Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation & Verification (ACE-V) – The comparison methodology utilized for impression evidence, to include: latent print evidence, footwear evidence, and ten-print evidence.

2. Association of Class Characteristics – The class characteristics of both design and physical size must correspond between the questioned impression and the known footwear.

3. Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) – A tool for searching and comparing finger and palmprints. Latent prints are entered into the database, and the computer automatically creates a ranked candidate list between latent prints and known standards.

4. Crime Type Index – Used to delineate between types of cases entered into SPEX and SAFIS: 1- Homicide 2- Robbery 3- Assault 4- Rape/Sexual Assault 5- Kidnapping/Carjacking 6- Burglary 7- Larceny from Auto (LFA) / Recovered Motor Vehicle (RMV) 8- Drug/Weapon Violations 9- Other Death Investigations 0- Other Category: To include Damage to Property (DTP), Hit & Run, Larceny,

Found Property, Fraud, Threats, Requests for Service (RFS)5. Erroneous Identification – The incorrect determination that two impressions originated from the

same source. 6. Exclusion – A determination that two impressions did not originate from the same source. 7. High Degree of Association – The questioned impression and known footwear must correspond

in the class characteristics of design, physical size, and general wear, but lack sufficient information to yield an identification.

8. Identification – A determination that two impressions originated from the same source. 9. Inconclusive – Neither an identification decision nor an exclusion determination can be

ascertained due to the lack of sufficient information present. 10. Indications of Non-Association – The questioned impression exhibits dissimilarities when

compared to the known footwear but the details or features were not sufficiently clear to permit an exclusion.

11. Known Standards – A set of deliberately recorded finger, palm, foot print, or footwear impressions.

12. Lacks Sufficient Detail – No comparison was conducted: the latent examiner determined there were no discernible questioned footwear impressions or features present.




13. Latent Print or Latent Impression – The unintentional recording of friction ridge skin that is not readily visible to the naked eye.

14. Limited Association of Class Characteristics – Some similar class characteristics were present but there were significant limiting factors in the questioned impression.

15. Major Case Style Impressions – The collection of all the friction ridge skin details on the hands or feet. This includes the tips of the fingers/toes, joints, sides of the fingers/toes, and all the surfaces of the palms of the hands and/or soles of the feet.

16. Not Database Quality (NDQ) – The latent evidence is determined to be unsuitable for database searching; however, it may be suitable for comparison purposes.

17. Next Generation Identification (NGI) – A program used to search the repository of all known standards maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

18. No Value (NV) – The latent evidence is determined to be unsuitable for comparison purposes.19. Of Value/Sufficient (OV) – When an impression contains sufficient information to allow for a

definitive conclusion as a result of the comparison process. 20. Rapid Identification (Rapid ID) – The process used to quickly and efficiently notify

investigators when a new subject has been identified from database searching involving persons crimes, residential burglaries, and other property crimes at the request the request of investors, or other property crimes at the discretion of the examiner.

21. SPEX – An AFIS database used to search the repository generally consisting of Wake County known standards.

22. State Automated Fingerprint Identification System (SAFIS) – The system used to search the repository of all known standards collected by agencies throughout the state of North Carolina, maintained by the North Carolina State Crime Laboratory.

23. Shoeprint Image Capture and Retrieval (SICAR) – A tool that allows the searching of questioned footwear impressions for the possible determination of the model and/or brand of known shoes.




Revision History


Number

Reason



Documents

Latent Print Unit Technical Procedures€¦ · Web view · 2018-04-17Raleigh/Wake City-County . Bureau of Identification. Crime Laboratory Division. LATENT PRINT UNIT TECHNICAL