|
|
|
Identification Standards-The Quest For Excellence (The following article, from SCAFO's current president, is reprinted from the December `95 issue of The California Identification Digest.)
by WILLIAM LEO, C.L.P.E. The very nature of friction skin eliminates the possibility of a set numerical or any other arbitrary quantitative standard when identifying areas of friction skin. Every area of identifiable friction skin is unique and must be evaluated on the unique formations of detail present. Also the clarity of this detail must be evaluated. Varying degrees of clarity will affect the amount of detail needed to individualize. Because of this complexity, artificial standards for identification are improper. So does this mean our profession lacks standards for identification? The fact that every identification is based on an evaluation and examination of the detail present, its clarity, unique formations and is independently compared and analyzed is a standard that has more scientific basis than a using a preconceived set of parameters when dealing with a discipline like friction skin identification. The fact that latent print examiners avoid probable or possible identifications that would lack any scientific foundation and report only identifications that are one hundred percent conclusive is a very high standard. Another standard is verification. In any science, the ability to duplicate findings is one accepted way to validate initial findings. The requirement that another expert independently examine the print evidence and verify identifications prior to reporting conclusions is another high standard. All law enforcement agencies should insure that the above standards are practiced. Some agencies violate these standards and set artificial numbers and/or waive the verification requirement. This may be the result of inadequate training or a disregard for the established standards. The standards for identification are in place. However, the area that now should be addressed is the training and experience standards for examiners. Because the unique features and clarity of each print must be evaluated to determine the amount of detail needed to identify, the training and experience of the examiner becomes the most critical element in the identification process. The key to elevating the status of our profession lies in recruiting quality personnel, proper training, and requiring adequate experience prior to being allowed to testify to identifications. As a profession we must establish minimum training and experience standards for latent print examiners. (Editor--—This article, which was submitted to the California Identification Digest and then for reprinting here, is intended to promote the thinking of California latent print examiners generally in terms of standards. Specifically, SCAFO President Leo wanted to stimulate thinking about minimum training standards. As SCAFO president, and with the approval the SCAFO Board of Directors, he is going forward with plans to host a meeting for all latent print examiners to discuss the feasibility and desire to propose California legislation establishing a bare minimum training requirement prior to offering “Expert” latent print comparison testimony. This meeting will be announced in the near future and all interested parties, pro and con, should plan to attend and make their views known.)
This article was reprinted in “THE PRINT” |