DOES THE USE OF DIGITAL TECHNIQUES BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES CREATE A RISK OF MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE? By Edward J. Imwinkelried, Michael Cherry and Larry Meyer
Why Current Fingerprint Measurements Are Unfair
Less Clarity More Similarity
35 MM film Digital camera
IN THE DIGITAL VERSION, A COMMON DEFECT HAS MUTATED THE APOSTROPHE BETWEEN V AND T INTO A DASH. The detail (resolution) of the digital image is within current IAFIS, AFIS, LIVESCAN and SWIGIT specifications. It takes specialized image training to find all of the defects.
35 MM Digital
The detail (resolution) of the digital image is within current IAFIS, AFIS, LIVESCAN and SWIGIT specifications. It takes specialized image training to find all of the defects.
LESS CLARITY MORE SIMILARITY
The current approach used by US fingerprint examiners factors in the quality of a latent fingerprint. Fingerprints are matched when an area within a latent corresponds to the same area within the exemplar and there are no disqualifying features. The size of the area selected is determined by the empherical quality of the fingerprints. Better appearing prints are matched against smaller sized areas.
This approach is flawed as digital latents and exemplars contain less detail and thus mistakenly appear to be of better quality than they actually are. Less fingerprint detail means less exclusionary detail and therefore more points-of-similarity. In theory, a conventional latent and a digital version of the same latent could each match with a different person.
Digital fingerprints have artifacts and many other anomalies. These anomalies are currently undetected as latent fingerprint examiners are not imaging experts.
309 766-4350
FRICTION RIDGE DISCOVERY
EXEMPLAR SECTION
Please separately answer the appropriate questions for each matched exemplar
1. Identify anatomy matched, i.e., left palm, right thumb etc.?
2. Is this exemplar a rolled, flat or flat group?
3. If this exemplar is a Livescan image, what make/model scanner was used?
4. If this exemplar is paper-based and then computer-scanned, what make/model scanner was used?
5. Provide the date and origin, e.g. FBI IAFIS, Ohio AFIS, local paper, local Livescan, Ohio Livescan etc., of this exemplar?
6. If this exemplar is paper-based and copied, what copier, make/model was used?
7. Explain each computer improvement made, including improvements that SWIGIT allows.
8. Provide a brief explanation of any incomplete or unknown answers.
EXEMPLAR MATCH SECTION
Please separately answer the appropriate questions for each matched exemplar
1. Was this exemplar matched using a screen, paper or other?
2. Describe other.
3. If this exemplar was screen matched, what screen?
4. If this exemplar was paper matched, what paper and printer were used?
5. How was the match corroborated: screen, printer output, other?
6. If electronic search was performed what was the scope of the search e.g. national, statewide etc.?
7. Was more than one search performed?
LATENT SECTION
Please separately answer the appropriate questions for each matched latent
1. Identify anatomy matched i.e. left palm, right thumb etc.?
2. Is this latent a lift or an image of a lift?
These questions only apply to an image of a lift
3. Was the image matched on a screen or on paper?
4. How was the original image created: 35 MM film, digital camera, Polaroid etc.?
5. Provide makes and models of the camera and lens used.
6. Is this a color, grey scale, or a black and white image?
7. If this image is paper-based and then computer-scanned, what make/model scanner was used?
8. If this latent is paper-based and copied, what make/model copier was used?
9. Explain each computer improvement made, including improvements that SWIGIT allows.
10. Provide a brief explanation of incomplete and unknown answers.