Abstract

The interpretation of forensic fingerprint evidence relies on the expertise of latent print examiners. We tested latent print examiners on the extent to which they reached consistent decisions. This study assessed intra-examiner repeatability by retesting 72 examiners on comparisons of latent and exemplar fingerprints, after an interval of approximately seven months; each examiner was reassigned 25 image pairs for comparison, out of total pool of 744 image pairs. We compare these repeatability results with reproducibility (inter-examiner) results derived from our previous study. Examiners repeated 89.1% of their individualization decisions, and 90.1% of their exclusion decisions; most of the changed decisions resulted in inconclusive decisions. Repeatability of comparison decisions (individualization, exclusion, inconclusive) was 90.0% for mated pairs, and 85.9% for nonmated pairs. Repeatability and reproducibility were notably lower for comparisons assessed by the examiners as “difficult” than for “easy” or “moderate” comparisons, indicating that examiners' assessments of difficulty may be useful for quality assurance. No false positive errors were repeated (n = 4); 30% of false negative errors were repeated. One percent of latent value decisions were completely reversed (no value even for exclusion vs. of value for individualization). Most of the inter- and intra-examiner variability concerned whether the examiners considered the information available to be sufficient to reach a conclusion; this variability was concentrated on specific image pairs such that repeatability and reproducibility were very high on some comparisons and very low on others. Much of the variability appears to be due to making categorical decisions in borderline cases.

Highlights

  • The forensic use of latent fingerprints and palmprints depends on the analysis, comparison, and evaluation decisions made by expert latent print examiners

  • During analysis of a print, latent print examiners must determine the value of the image before proceeding to comparison: value for individualization (VID), value for exclusion only (VEO), or no value (NV)

  • The responses provided on these tests were decisions of individual examiners, which may not reflect the final decisions that an agency would have reported with the benefit of organizational quality management

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The forensic use of latent fingerprints and palmprints depends on the analysis, comparison, and evaluation decisions made by expert latent print examiners. We present repeatability data from the retest, and further analyses of the reproducibility data from the initial test, to more completely characterize the accuracy and reliability of latent print examiners. The results of this study strengthen the understanding of latent examiners’ decisions, contributing to the scientific basis for fingerprint examination. This serves the needs of the forensic science community by clarifying the value of forensic evidence with respect to legal questions of admissibility; by helping to identify where to focus training, certification, and standardization; and by providing data to assist agencies in managing finite resources and improving procedures to ensure the quality of results

Background
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
A Initial Test Exclusion B Initial Test Exclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call