NYCLAC Report Standardization Project
Latent Print Comparison
- Unique case identifier on each page of report (such as lab number)
- Title of the report (such as “report of laboratory analysis”)
- Identification of the laboratory
- Submitting Agency Info or at a minimum submitting agency
- List or explanation of items examined
- General indication of methodology utilized
- Date report issued
- Signature and title of examiner (or electronic equivalent)
- Pagination of the report (example page 1 of 2 etc.)
- Statement regarding the report does not constitute the entire case file or equivalent
- Statement that definitions of terms used in the report can be located at the DCJS website
Additional Discipline Specific Report Components:
- Available exemplars: Include name (Alias/alternative DOB), Anatomical Source, Origin or record, and Identification number (e.g., NYSID)
- Automated Databases (SABIS/AFIS/NGI)- Information concerning the search of latent print evidence through automated databases, and the inclusion of what databases were searched. Statement must include: latent print(s) searched, what databases were searched, results, entrance to ULD, and if a hit was made the name/identifier of subject. Statement can be narrative or tabular format.
Analysis of Latent Print (Friction Ridge) Impressions
Determination of Suitability
Depending on agency approach, the reporting statements for indicating latent print suitability will minimally contain language similar to the following for each approach:
- “suitable for identification” or “of value for identification”
- “not suitable for identification” or “of no value for identification”
- “suitable for comparison” or “of value for comparison”
- “not suitable for comparison” or “of no value for comparison”
- “suitable for exclusion only” or “of value for exclusion only”
Comparison/Evaluation of Latent Print (Friction Ridge) Impressions
A latent impression and a known exemplar print have been compared and have a sufficient amount of corresponding agreement, without the presence of an unexplainable discrepancy or dissimilarity.
When the comparison and evaluation results in an identification decision, reporting will include: the latent print identifier (as determined by individual lab policy), the name of the subject, and the conclusion (Identification). Individual laboratories may determine if the anatomical source is listed or not. (e.g., 1A/John Jones/Identification- Left Thumb).
Required terminology to be included in statement:
A latent impression and a known exemplar card have been compared and there is a discordance of data, leading to the conclusion that the impressions did not originate from a single source. The adoption of one of the analysis approaches, as described above, will determine the sufficiency of latent print evidence for the determination of exclusionary value in accordance with laboratory policy.
When the comparison and evaluation results in an exclusion decision reporting will include: the latent print identifier (as determined by individual lab policy), the name of the subject, and the conclusion (Exclusion). If laboratory policy has adopted SWGFAST Approach 2 (Section 18.104.22.168 of Document 10), report must state during analysis if latent is suitable for exclusion value only.
Required terminology to be included in statement:
- excluded or exclusion
Based upon the data available, the examiner is unable to reach a conclusion of Identification or Exclusion.
When the comparison and evaluation results in an inconclusive decision reporting will include: the latent print identifier (as determined by individual lab policy), the name of the subject, the conclusion (Inconclusive), and reasoning for the inconclusive result.
Required terminology to be included in statement must be similar to:
- “not identified or excluded” or
- “no identification or exclusion”
- “did not reveal an identification or exclusion”
The acronym for a scientific method; Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (see individual terms).
The acronym for Automated Fingerprint Identification System, a generic term for a fingerprint matching, storage, and retrieval system.
The first step of the ACE-V method. The assessment of an impression to determine suitability for comparison.
The independent examination of one or more friction ridge impressions at any stage of the ACE process by another competent examiner who is provided with no, or limited, contextual information, and has no expectation or knowledge of the determinations or conclusions of the original examiner.
Distinctive details of the friction ridges, including Level 1, 2, and 3 details (also known as features).
The second step of the ACE-V method. The observation of two or more impressions to determine the existence of discrepancies, dissimilarities, or similarities.
Complete Friction Ridge Exemplars
A systematic recording of all friction ridge detail appearing on the palmar sides of the hands. This includes the extreme sides of the palms, joints, tips, and sides of the fingers (also known as major case prints).
Determination made during the evaluation stage of ACE-V, including identification, inconclusive, and exclusion.
A significant interaction between examiners regarding one or more impressions in question.
Variances in the reproduction of friction skin caused by factors such as pressure, movement, force, and contact surface.
Exemplars of friction ridge skin detail of persons known to have had legitimate access to an object or location.
The third step of the ACE-V method wherein an examiner assesses the value of the details observed during the analysis and the comparison steps and reaches a conclusion.
The determination by an examiner that there is sufficient quality and quantity of detail in disagreement to conclude that two areas of friction ridge impressions did not originate from the same source.
The prints of an individual, associated with a known or claimed identity, and deliberately recorded electronically, by ink, or by another medium (also known as known prints).
The acromym of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Next Generation Identification System.
Distinctive details of the friction ridges, including Level 1, 2, and 3 details (also known as characteristics).
An impression of the friction ridges of all or any part of the finger.
A raised portion of the epidermis on the palmar or plantar skin, consisting of one or more connected ridge units.
Friction Ridge Detail (Morphology)
An area comprised of the combination of ridge flow, ridge characteristics, and ridge structure.
Friction Ridge Unit
A single section of ridge containing one pore.
The determination by an examiner that there is sufficient quality and quantity of detail in agreement to conclude that two friction ridge impressions originated from the same source.
Friction ridge detail deposited on a surface.
The determination by an examiner that there is neither sufficient agreement to identify, nor sufficient disagreement to exclude.
Joint (of the finger)
The hinged area that separates segments of the finger.
Known Prints (finger, palm, foot)
The prints of an individual, associated with a known or claimed identity, and deliberately recorded electronically, by ink, or by another medium (also known as exemplars).
- Transferred impression of friction ridge detail not readily visible.
- Generic term used for unintentionally deposited friction ridge detail.
Level 1 Detail
Friction ridge flow, pattern type, and general morphological information. Level 1 detail may be used for exclusionary purposes, however may not be used alone to reach a conclusion of identification.
Level 2 Detail
Individual friction ridge paths and associated events, including minutiae. Level 2 detail may be used alone, or in conjunction with level 1 detail to reach a conclusion of identification or exclusion.
Level 3 Detail
Friction ridge dimensional attributes, such as width, edge shapes, and pores. Level 3 detail may be used in conjunction with level 2 detail to reach a conclusion of identification. Level 3 detail may not be used alone in order to reach a conclusion.
An adhesive or other medium used to transfer a friction ridge impression from a substrate.
Major Case Print / Impressions
A systematic recording of the friction ridge detail appearing on the palmar sides of the hands. This includes the extreme sides of the palms, joints, tips, and sides of the fingers (also known as complete friction ridge exemplars).
An impression of the friction ridges of all or any part of the palmar surface of the hand.
Fundamental pattern of the ridge flow: arch, loop, whorl. Arches are subdivided into plain and tented arches; loops are subdivided into radial and ulnar loops; whorls are subdivided into plain whorls, double loops, pocket loops, and accidental whorls.
The clarity of information contained within a friction ridge impression.
The amount of information contained within a friction ridge impression.
The Statewide Automated Biometric Identification System. New York State maintains an automated database for the search of fingerprint and palmprint impressions to a known exemplar repository.
Two or more friction ridge impressions from the same hand or foot deposited concurrently.
An area of friction ridge skin from an individual from which an impression originated.
The product of the quality and quantity of the objective data under observation (e.g., friction ridge, crease, and scar features).
The determination that there is sufficiency in a comparison to reach a conclusion at the evaluation stage.
The determination that there is sufficiency in an impression to be of value for further analysis or comparison.
- A generic reference to examinations performed on intentionally recorded friction ridge impressions.
- A controlled recording of an individual’s available fingers using ink, electronic imaging, or other medium.
Unsolved Latent File
Database in SABIS and FBI NGI where unsolved latent print images are deposited. The Unsolved Latent File may also be referred to as the Unsolved Latent Database(s).
The independent application of the ACE process as utilized by a subsequent examiner to either support or refute the conclusions of the original examiner; this may be conducted as blind verification. Verification may be followed by some level of review as specified by agency policy.