Analysis of Fingerprint Identification - Research Paper Example

FINGERPRINTING The concept of whether or not the study of fingerprint identification is a science has caused long, drawn-out pre-trial hearings.Although the science of fingerprint identification has been legally challenged, it has won every single one of those challenges. It has been proven after numerous Daubert hearings that the reliability of fingerprints as scientific evidence has succeeded. The methodology has met the requirements of the Daubert/Kuhmo standards. With approximately 100 years of successful use in criminal trials the reliability of fingerprint comparison and identification has been established. Statistical analysis in science is a tool that puts a numeric value to the “thing” being tested, it does not prove the validity of the actual science. The empirical study of fingerprints has taken place over the past 100 years and has proven that fingerprints are unique and individual. From the critical perspective, fingerprint comparison and identification methodology remains reliable and valid as scientific evidence and to this day has yet to be considered inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. Fingerprints are developed while the fetus is still in the womb. The friction ridge detail begins to develop on the hands and feet of a fetus during the 12th or 13th weeks of pregnancy (Ashbaugh, 1999, p.54). These “ridges do not run from one side of the hand or the finger to the other in a continuous stream, but are broken and noncontinuous. The arrangement of these ridges, like all natural things, is unique” (McRoberts, 1994, p.l). From the scientific perspective, early pioneers in fingerprint history are considered Sir William J. Herschel and Dr. Henry Faulds. Herschel is actually credited for “being the first European to recognize the value of friction ridge prints and to actually use them for identification purposes” (Aushbaugh, 1999, p.21). However, Alphonse Bertillon in Paris, France was first to devise the first truly scientific method of criminal identification, called anthropometry or Bertillonage. Bertillon “included fingerprints on the rear of his anthropometric cards as a final check of his identification. Upon Bertillon’s death in 1914, Bertillonage was discarded in France and replaced by fingerprint identification” (Ashbaugh, 1999, p. 28). In 1893, fingerprinting was added to the files at Scotland Yard, but anthropometry was still considered the primary method of identification until 1901. Sir Francis Galton, a British scientist, through testimony and demonstrations, was able to convince Scotland Yard of the importance of fingerprints and the success rate of fingerprint identifications. “Anthropometry was abandoned and fingerprinting was established as the primary means of personal identification” (Ashbaugh, 1999, p. 30). The first major criminal case in the United States to recognize the scientific and legal viability of fingerprint evidence was People v. Jennings, decided by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1911. Jennings had committed a burglary of a residence and, in the process, killed the home­owner. Jennings had been identified by several eyewitnesses and subsequently arrested. Officers from the identification bureau of the Chicago Police Department had located the imprint of four fingers of someone’s left hand that had been left on a freshly painted railing in the victims residence. A comparison of the fingerprint impressions and Jennings fingerprints were made and determined to be that of the same person, and that person was identified as Jennings. Jennings was convicted of murder after a trial. The defendant appealed the ruling based on the feet that fingerprints should not be able to entered into evidence under the common-law rules of evidence because there was no statue authorizing its admissibility in court. The court had noted that although England accepted fingerprint evidence as being reliable, there had been no reported cases or state statutes addressing the admissibility of fingerprint evidence. The court was aware of the success of the use of fingerprint evidence in England and decided to conduct a thorough analysis of fingerprint identification. Four fingerprint experts testified as to their knowledge and experience of fingerprint impressions and to the history of fingerprints and its use in identification. Kiely (2001) wrote that the court determined that: ...There is a scientific basis for the system of fingerprint identification…this method of identification is in such general and common use that the courts cannot refuse to take judicial cognizance of it. Such evidence may or may not be of independent strength, but it is admissible, the same as other proof, as tending to make out a case (p. 222). The court examined the rules guiding the admissibility of expert testimony and held that the fingerprint impressions and their method of identification is a science requiring study and that the evidence in question does not come “within the common experience of all men of common education in the ordinary walks of life, and therefore the court and the jury were properly aided by witnesses of peculiar and special experience on this subject” (Kiely, 2001, p. 223). For the past 100 years, fingerprints have been used to identify criminals and have been accepted as reliable evidence in courts of law. An important issue and a leading discussion in the legal system today, is the scrutiny that the legal system is placing on the methodology of fingerprint examination and whether or not fingerprint examination and comparison is considered a science. Fingerprints have been “generally accepted” in the judicial system as reliable evidence under the Frye standards. The Frye standards state that as long as tests or procedures have gained general acceptance in their particular field, then they are admissible in court. Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.) (2002) defines the “Frye standards” or the “Frye test” as “the defunct federal common-law rule of evidence on the admissibility of scientific evidence.” The standard in New York for evidence to be admissible in court is based upon Frye standards, but with the attention that Daubert standards have gained, judges are allowing “Daubert-type” questioning from attorneys. What was “generally accepted” as scientific evidence in the past is being scrutinized even more today. Attorneys are questioning the expert witnesses’ testimony more thoroughly and holding them to a higher standard than in the past. The science of fingerprints is being questioned on whether or not it is reliable and valid, and should it be accepted as evidence in a court of law. Alan McRoberts (1992) of the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department explained that the science of fingerprints constitutes an applied science, and its foundation of uniqueness and permanence is well established in the sciences of anatomy, embryology, and genetics. According to McRoberts (1992), when one also include the sciences supporting fingerprint development or enhancement techniques, one would add chemistry, physics, photography, and computer sciences. The identification process is an application of scientific comparison methodology (McRoberts, 1992). Thomas Ferriola (2004), an identification technician for the Sebastian Police Department in Florida, describes applied science by saying, “we apply scientific knowledge and principles to real-life problems to arrive at conclusions. This application gives scientific validity to the conclusions ... Without it, no fingerprint identification is anything more than the rendering of an educated guess” (p.l). The most popular forensic identification methodology is ACE-V: Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification. Analysis, in terms of fingerprint identification, is when the examiner thoroughly examines the latent for “level one details.” “Level one details” can be described as the way the ridge pattern flows. The three basic “level one details” are loops, whorls or arches. “Level two details” refer to the unique ridge details, called “points” or minutiae. “Level two details” consist of ending ridges, bifurcations, enclosures or islands, and dots. “Level three details” consist of details that are contained in a single ridge, such as sweat pores, usually seen with the assistance of a microscope. The analysis phase also consists of all the causes of distortion and pressure, and its effect upon the print. Clarity is analyzed during this phase. Clarity is determined by how much detail the print contains and the level of distortion present. The examiner focuses on a cluster of points or details that will be easy to memorize, then searches the inked prints for “like” points. The second phase of the identification process is comparison. When conducting a comparison, the examiner focuses on the unknown print and looks for the same detail in the inked or known prints. Once a known print is found to have the same unique details of the latent print, the evaluation phase takes place. During the evaluation, the examiner will place the known print and the latent print side by side and determine if the features found in the latent print coincide with the features found in the known or inked print. As Wertheim explains, the reason for working from the unknown image to the known has its foundation in psychology (2000, p.6). When dealing with a less clear image, usually the latent or unknown print, the brain is subject to influence by “mind-set”, then locates and evaluates the corresponding features in the known print. Ferriola (2004) describes this psychological phenomenon of “mind-set” as, “if a feature is first observed in a clear image, the brain may form an expectation and be tricked into ‘seeing’ the same feature in an unclear image even though it does not actually exist there” (p. 12). Specific rules need to be followed in order to carry out a systematic approach to fingerprint comparison. David Ashbaugh is a leading expert in the field of fingerprints. He coined the term “ridgeology” in order to describe the scientific principles that incorporate fingerprints as scientific evidence. The methodology used in the identification of friction ridge prints is “ACE-V” which stands for: analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification (1999). It is further described as “analysis is observing the latent print. Comparison is experimentation to prove or disprove the hypothesis or counter-hypothesis (identity or non-identity), and evaluation corresponds with conclusion. Verification is testing the conclusion” (Scarborough, York, and Wertheim, 2004, p.l). Verification is also described as a form of peer review. David Ashbaugh states that while verification may prevent the occasional error, its purpose is to verify process and objectivity as opposed to only checking results” (Scarborough et al., 2004, p. 148). The ACE-V methodology has been criticized because the terminology ACE-V is relatively new. Andre Moenssens, Professor of Law, explains that the ACE-V process in which fingerprint examiners engage, rather than being untested, “is nothing more than a refinement, a clarification, and an evolution of the comparison process that examiners have used for many decades” (Scarborough et el., 2004, p. 3). It is an improvement in that it bases the subjective ultimate opinion of a latent print examiner upon the following of a described scientific methodology - a protocol designed to have a subjective opinion of the examiner depend on the following of objective criteria. The conclusion of fingerprint identification as objective testimony was further represented in United States v. Havvard. Wade Havvard was convicted of possessing a firearm. The evidence against him was a latent fingerprint that had been lifted from a .45 caliber pistol that was recovered at the time of Havvard’s arrest. He argued that the government had not “established the scientific reliability of fingerprint comparisons to render such evidence admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence 702”, (United States v. Wade Havvard, Criminal Case No. IP 00-43-CR-01 H/F, 2000), which discusses expert witness testimony. The Honorable David Hamilton stated that the district court found that the claims of the uniqueness and permanence of fingerprints are “scientific” claims because those claims can be “falsifie”, and that much of the fingerprint comparison process is “completely objective” and the district court observed that the methods of comparison are easily testable such that both parties can subject prints to comparison to verify a purported match (p.3). In United States v. Havvard the district court concluded that fingerprint analysis is sufficiently reliable to satisfy the Daubert/Kuhmo standard and denied Havvard’s motion. Another approach to the validity and reliability of fingerprints is the study of the science of comparison. Written in the Journal of Forensic Identification, Karen Hare (2003) of the Midland Police department indicates that proportional analysis is a systematic approach to a comparative analysis and can be used to determine individuality and recognition. According to Hare, this methodology can be applied to all of the forensic comparative sciences and is not limited to the analysis of friction ridge formations, “it is a means of explaining scientifically how a comparison is affected” (Hare, 2003, p.700). Hare (2003) further explains that fingerprint identification and comparison is based upon a visual process in which the fingerprint examiner views and compares the fingerprints and accesses the “spatial relationships” that appear between the two. These spatial relationships and the interlocking spatial clusters that are made when viewed together allow an examiner to systematically apply proportional analysis to obtain recognition and individualization in a manner that allows for repeatability and reliability from one examiner to another during the verification or peer review process (Hare, 2003). Hare concludes that, “when examiners utilize proportional analysis, their results will be scientific because this method is observable, measurable, and verifiable” (Hare, 2003, p.704). A major issue being raised by defense attorneys is the scientific basis of fingerprint identification. Under the standards set by Daubert, in order for an expert opinion to be admissible, it must be based on scientific methodology. Pat Wertheim (2000), a member of the International Association of Identification and a certified latent print examiner, stated “fingerprint identification is based on two primary factors, uniqueness and permanence” (p.l). Wertheim (2000) further stated that one must understand both human fetal development of friction (the foundation of uniqueness) and the subsurface structure of human friction skin (the basis for permanence). This requires some fundamental study of human biological sciences. Thus, according to Wertheim (2000) the basis for fingerprint identification is firmly rooted in science. Wertheim (2000) explains that fingerprint identification falls into a category called applied science. The problem with fingerprint testimony being questioned as reliable testimony is due to the lack of knowledge of the expert witness. In order to be able to articulate the proper methodology of fingerprint science, the expert must know the scientific basis on which the methodology is based. Fingerprint evidence is no longer taken at face value. Unlike its role in the past, the reliability of fingerprint evidence must be thoroughly explained. A landmark case that brought attention to the admissibility of fingerprints as evidence due to the Daubert standards, was the United States of America v. Byron Mitchell (1999). Mitchell was charged with armed robbery in Philadelphia and the leading evidence against him were two latent fingerprints. Mitchell’s attorneys aware of the legal challenges that fingerprints were facing with Daubert tried to convince the court that fingerprint comparison and its methodology were unreliable because it lacked the criteria to “fit” the Daubert standards. The defense witnesses testified that fingerprint comparison and identification had not been tested scientifically. The court ruled that the latent fingerprint evidence in this case was valid and reliable. During the Daubert hearing, the prosecution asked the court to give fingerprint comparison and identification judicial notice “that fingerprint evidence is scientific,” but the court “deemed this question to be irrelevant because evidence need not be scientific in order to be admissible - it could be based on technical knowledge” (Cole, 2001, p. 285). The legal challenges that fingerprint identification will endure are far from over. Some fingerprint skeptics feel that fingerprint identification will eventually be considered obsolete and DNA “fingerprinting” will be the new standard of identification. Professor Andre Moenssens (2002) argued the difference between the two sciences, stating that, “fingerprint identification does not rest, as does DNA analysis, on class characteristics, but on individual ridge detail” (p.5). Practically, the DNA of identical twins is identical according to methods now available. By contrast, it has been empirically established that the fingerprints of identical twins are different in their individual ridge characteristics (Moenssens, 2002). During the last decade, forensic science has been dominated by genetic analysis. Lawyers now focus greatly on DNA evidence to argue the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Although DNA analysis has contributed an enormous amount of beneficial information to the forensic science community, fingerprint analysis can differentiate between identical twins; DNA technology has not yet accomplished that, giving fingerprint analysis the greater advantage for identification. REFERENCES Ashbaugh, D. (1999). Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Ed). (2000). St. Paul, MN: West Group Cole, S. (2001). Suspect Identies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ferriola, T. (2004). Scientific principles of friction ridge analysis. Retrieved April 23,2010 from Hare, K. (2003). Proportional analysis: the science of comparison. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56(6), 700-706 Kiely, T. (2001). Forensic Evidence: Science and the Criminal Law. Boca Raton: CRC Press McRoberts, A. (1994). Fingerprints- what they can and cannot do. The Print 10 (7), 1-3. Moenssens. A. (2002). The reliability of fingerprint identification - a case report. University of Missouri at Kansas City, 1-7. Retrieved April 23, 2010 < http://www.onin.com/fp/reliability_of_fp_ident.html> Scarborough, S., York, R., & Werthiem, K. (2004). DaubertCard. Retrieved April 23, 2010 from Wertheim, P. (2000). Scientific comparison and identification of fingerprint evidence. The Print 16(2), 1-8. Read More