The Legal Profession, the Dactylography Profession and Certification

(This article originally appeared in the Summer, 1986, (vol. X, #3) issue of Prosecutor's Brief, published by the California District Attorneys Association.)

by RICHARD RENEAU

The court was called to order, the judge was seated and everyone was present.  The judge began, “Let the record reflect that this is the time and the place for the preliminary hearing...”  Another day in court was about to begin.  Papers were being softly shuffled and hushed conversations took place around the court.  The deputy district attorney and the defense attorney introduced themselves for the record and the deputy district attorney prepared to call his first witness.  The defense attorney and the defendant quietly review the charges–five, no...six charges of residential burglary.  The defendant unconsciously stares without focusing for a time, thinks for a moment, then returns to reality and turns to his attorney.  “Five of those burglaries,” the defendant said.  “I told you I did, but I didn't do the sixth one; I don't even know where it is.”  The defense attorney dutifully listens; he has heard this before from other defendants, but this time for some reason it sounds more convincing.  The defense attorney asks for a few moments for a conference with the deputy district attorney before continuing.  After a short conversation between the two attorneys, they take their respective places in the court.  The defense attorney turns to his client and says, “They have identified you inside the residences by fingerprints on all six of the burglaries.  Are you sure you just haven't forgotten this one?”  “Like I told you before, I don't even know where it is,” the defendant replied.  After another conversation with the deputy district attorney the two attorneys agree to have another fingerprint expert reexamine the burglary in question.

The outside expert determined that the fingerprints in the sixth case did not match the defendant's.  

Perhaps the above is a bit melodramatic and the conversations may not have taken place exactly as stated, but the facts in the above illustration actually took place in California.  In fact, the district attorney's independent examiner made a recommendation that all the fingerprint evidence examined by the above “expert” be reviewed.  The District Attorney agreed and required the local police department to allow the review.  The independent review found five erroneous identifications where the prints at the crime scene did not match the accused.  Six additional incidences had positive identifications on evidence which were not of sufficient quality to be identified to anyone, much less the accused.  Incredibly, four of the cases were waiting to go to trial and those charges had to be dismissed.  Fortunately, all of the charges were handled with relative ease.

From the first time fingerprint evidence was introduced into a United States court in 1911 (People v. Jennings) until today, fingerprint evidence has proven to be one of the strongest types of evidence in the courtroom.  Today, fingerprint evidence has such a reputation in court that we may have forgotten that the evidence is only as good as the people who present it.  An analysis of the above eleven incidences by the District Attorney's office underscores the strength of the evidence and the weaknesses of the system providing the testimony.  The analysis showed that the real culprits of the opening illustration were: inadequate training, lack of experience, inappropriate screening process for hiring and a lack of skill level testing as a part of the hiring process.

To determine if a person is competent to testify as an expert in California we must first examine “if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him.”1  If the court is satisfied with the qualifications the fingerprint examiner is accepted by the court to give expert testimony.  The fingerprint expert can then include “his special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education”2 as a basis for stating his opinion.  The questions for the court to decide are how much special knowledge, skill, experience and what level of training and education or what combination of these are sufficient to permit a person to testify and provide necessary credibility to the opinion rendered.  The Law Revision Commission determined that it would be “...impossible...to formulate a statutory rule"3 that would provide clear answers to all of the previous questions.  Today, new developments have caused even further subdivisions of expertise.  Current complexities in the forensic science fields and possible future changes in attitude toward the forensic sciences prompted the “assurance that the court and the legislature are free to continue to develop specific rules regarding the proper basis for particular kinds of expert opinion in specific fields.”4

The questions of experience, training and education that the justice system must answer were the subject of a survey in 1977.  During the course of the survey, the judges and district attorneys revealed a consensus of opinion regarding the desirable credentials of an expert witness.  “It seems that over ninety percent of the individuals using forensic science want to see more utilization of trained forensic personnel due to their superior credibility when testifying.  Licensing or certification of the forensic sciences personnel through some legal or private professional procedures acceptable to law is desired.”5

The International Association for Identification6 examined the results of this survey, the Trend of Automation, the Rand study of 1975, and determined there would be a high demand for qualified Fingerprint Examiners in the future.  In 1977, the International Association for Identification established the Latent Print Certification Board.  This marked the first time positive steps were taken by the profession to eliminate the disparity of training, experience, and education accepted by law enforcement agencies.  Up to this time, some law enforcement agencies required six years experience and hundreds of hours of formal training before becoming a latent fingerprint examiner qualified for court, while others required only eighty hours of classroom training before allowing them to testify as an expert.  Thus, the Certification Board provided a voluntary method whereby the people participating could voice the profession's opinion on the criteria for determining an expert in court and meet the desires of the legal profession regarding the March 1977 survey.

In 1977, the International Association for Identification's newly formed Certification Board established guidelines so that anyone who wanted to become certified as a Latent Print Examiner would have to meet the following criteria:

1. Be of good moral character;

2. Possess 40 hours of formal training in classifying and 40 hours formal classroom training in latent print matters;

3. Possess three years of experience;

4. Pass an examination consisting of practical and theoretical sections requiring six and one half hours to complete.

5. Provide an actual court case for the Certification Board's review or submit to a taped oral examination or submit written answers to questions possibly encountered in court testimony;

6. Possess formal education to include a B.S. or B.A. degree by August 1987;

7. Be re--certified every three years;

8. May have the certification suspended or revoked for cause determined by the Certification Board.

In addition to the above criteria, each person certified is expected to adhere to the Code of Ethics for Latent Print Examiners.  All of the criteria were adopted only after numerous hours of debate examining future prospects of sophisticated computerization and the utilization of complex and expensive lab equipment such as the laser.  Subsequently, the Certification Board has determined that the above criteria are necessary to maintain a high degree of professional credibility.

Today, the certification program has certified nearly 1,000 Latent Print Examiners throughout the United States and around the world.

Many law enforcement agencies have supported the efforts of the dactylography profession by requiring their examiners to be certified or by providing incentives for being certified.  District Attorneys in some jurisdictions have also supported the concept of certification by demanding that only certified examiners be allowed to testify or requiring that all identifications be verified by a certified examiner.

“The need unequivocally to identify Latent Print Examiners qualified to provide essential professional services for the nation's judicial branches of government has been long recognized.” 7 The profession has taken the initiative.  Those who participate are held accountable for possible censure or revocation; they do so not by force of state regulation but a desire to standardize training, experience, and education at levels that will continue to provide “...superior credibility when testifying.”8  Thus, the certification program provides a method of identifying and recognizing those professionals with the requisite qualification “in the interest of the public and of the criminal justice system.”9

 

1 California Evidence Code, Section 720.

2 California Evidence Code, Section 801(b).

3 “Comment --—Law Revision Commission,”  California Evidence Code, Section 801, p. 390.

4 Ibid., p. 391.

5 Schroeder, Oliver Jr., “Assessment of Forensic Science Professions,”  Vol  III, U.S. Department of Justice, March, 1977, quoted from: F. Kathryn Quackenbush, “Problems with the accelerated needed for Latent Print Examiners,” Identification News, December, 1981.

6 The International Association for Identification is an organization for professionals involved in the forensic sciences of identification and is incorporated in Delaware.

7 “Background, Functions and Purposes of the Latent Print Certification Board,” Pamphlet from Latent Print Certification Board, p. 1.

8 Schroeder, Oliver, p. IX.

9 “Background, Functions and Purposes of the Latent Print Certification Board,” p. 1.

(Editor–Several changes in the certification requirements and program have occurred since the program was initiated in 1977.  Many of the these changes have eliminated the misgivings examiners have expressed about the program.  As of January 1, 2000 the requirements on the following page became effective and the program has been raised to a higher level.  In addition to the current requirements, other changes are now effective for the renewal of certification.  Renewals are only required every 5 years, instead of every 3 years.  However, re--certification now requires 80 hours of training instead of 40, and
a proficiency test is mandated for re--certification.)

For more information on IAI Certification contact:
John Kilgore, Secretary
Latent Print Certification Board, I.A.I.
clpesec.@aol.com

Online visit:
www.onin.com/clpe/clpehome.html

CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTIFICATION AND APPLICATION

PROCEDURES FOR LATENT PRINT EXAMINERS

I.    General Qualifications
 An applicant for certification must be of good moral character, high integrity, good repute, and must possess high ethical and professional standing.

II.    Educational Qualifications
A.     Bachelor's Degree plus 3 years basic experience as required by Section IV.

or

B.     Experience can be substituted for the Bachelor' Degree requirement at the rate of one year full time experience as a latent print examiner for one year of college credit on the following basis:

a.     An Associate Degree (or documentation of 60 semester hours or 90 quarter hours of college credits) plus 3 years basic experience as required by Section IV plus 2 years full--time experience as a latent print examiner (total 5 years experience) equals Bachelor's Degree requirement.

or

b.     Three years basic experience as required by Section IV plus 4 years full--time experience as a latent print examiner (total 7 years experience) equals Bachelor's Degree requirement.

Educational requirements are not applicable to re--certification.

III.     Technical Training
          Minimum of 80 hours of formal training in fingerprint matters.

IV.     Basic Experience
A.     Minimum of one year full--time experience in classification, filing and searching of inked fingerprints,

and

B.     Minimum of two years' full--time experience in the comparison and identification of latent print material and related matters,

or

C.     If less than one year's experience in classification, filing and searching of fingerprints, then must have a minimum of three years' experience in the comparison and identification of latent print material and related matters.

D.     If less than full--time experience for the given time periods is possessed, times must be accumulated to reach an acceptable minimum.

 

V.     Endorsements
All applicants for certification must submit two letters of endorsement. If the applicant is employed by a public law enforcement agency, one letter shall be from a superior within the applicant's department or agency and one shall be from an associate in the field of print identification certified by the I.A.I. and who is a member of either a state or regional division and/or the parent body. If an applicant is using the experience substitution to meet the educational requirements, letters of endorsement should include information concerning the number of years basic, and full--time experience the applicant possesses.

VI.     Examinations
Certification shall be determined by testing to encompass four areas:

1.     Written test -- The applicant will be required to pass a written test covering both technical aspects and the development of the science of fingerprint identification.

2.     Pattern recognition of inked fingerprints.

3.     The comparison of latent prints to inked prints.

4.     Either oral board testing and/or presentation of a case for review to include a latent print, inked print, charted enlargements and court questions and answers.

If the applicant HAS already testified in a court of law as an expert, he may submit a case for review, or may submit to the oral board testing.

If the applicant HAS NOT given testimony in a court of law as an expert, he shall be required to undergo oral board testing.

VII.     General Provisions Concerning Certification

1.     The right to deny certification is reserved.

2.     Certificates granted and issued may be suspended or revoked by the Certification Board for any of the following reasons:

a.     A misstatement or misrepresentation, or concealment or commission of a material fact or facts in an application or any other communication.

b.     Conviction of an applicant for certification or holder of a certification by a court of competent jurisdiction of a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.

c.     Issuance of a certificate contrary to or in violation of any of the laws, standards, rules or regulations of the I.A.I., or determination that the person certified was not in fact eligible to receive such certificate at the time of its issuance.

d.     Unethical conduct or technical error by a holder of a certificate that brings the specialty of latent print identification into disrepute.

3.     Action to suspend or revoke may only be taken after at least thirty (30) days advance notice of the charges or reasons for such action has been given to the individual concerned and an opportunity for such person to be heard has been provided by the I.A.I.

4.     Persons holding a valid, un--revoked certificate by the Certification Board are entitled to use the designation Certified Latent Print Examiner in conformance with the standards of the International Association for Identification.

 

 

 

This article was reprinted in “THE PRINT”
Volume 15(6) November / December 1999, pp 4 - 6
and has been obtained from the online library provided by the
Southern California Association of Fingerprint Officers
www.scafo.org