Fingerprint identification: advances since the 2009 National Research Council report

This paper will discuss the major developments in the area of fingerprint identification that followed the publication of the National Research Council (NRC, of the US National Academies of Sciences) report in 2009 entitled: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The report portrayed an image of a field of expertise used for decades without the necessary scientific research-based underpinning. The advances since the report and the needs in selected areas of fingerprinting will be detailed. It includes the measurement of the accuracy, reliability, repeatability and reproducibility of the conclusions offered by fingerprint experts. The paper will also pay attention to the development of statistical models allowing assessment of fingerprint comparisons. As a corollary of these developments, the next challenge is to reconcile a traditional practice dominated by deterministic conclusions with the probabilistic logic of any statistical model. There is a call for greater candour and fingerprint experts will need to communicate differently on the strengths and limitations of their findings. Their testimony will have to go beyond the blunt assertion of the uniqueness of fingerprints or the opinion delivered ispe dixit.

[1]  S. Cole,et al.  Certainty, Indvidualisation and the Subjective Nature of Expert Fingerprint Evidence , 2012 .

[2]  Joseph Polski,et al.  Document Title: The Report of the International Association for Identification, Standardization II Committee , 2011 .

[3]  Ivo Alberink,et al.  Fingermark Evidence Evaluation Based on Automated Fingerprint Identification System Matching Scores: The Effect of Different Types of Conditioning on Likelihood Ratios , 2014, Journal of forensic sciences.

[4]  Pat A Wertheim,et al.  Testing for Potential Contextual Bias Effects During the Verification Stage of the ACE‐V Methodology when Conducting Fingerprint Comparisons * , 2009, Journal of forensic sciences.

[5]  J. Dipierri,et al.  Are there population differences in minutiae frequencies? A comparative study of two Argentinian population samples and one Spanish sample. , 2012, Forensic science international.

[6]  Cedric Neumann,et al.  Statistics and Probabilities as a Means to Support Fingerprint Examination , 2012 .

[7]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Repeatability and Reproducibility of Decisions by Latent Fingerprint Examiners , 2012, PloS one.

[8]  Betty Layne DesPortes.  Friction Ridge Opinion Evidence after Daubert and the NAS Report , 2014 .

[9]  C Champod,et al.  Evidence evaluation in fingerprint comparison and automated fingerprint identification systems--Modeling between finger variability. , 2014, Forensic science international.

[10]  C. Aitken,et al.  Liberties and constraints of the normative approach to evaluation and decision in forensic science: a discussion towards overcoming some common misconceptions , 2014 .

[11]  J. Bohan,et al.  Review of: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward , 2010 .

[12]  Cedric Neumann,et al.  Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm , 2012 .

[13]  R. Kemp,et al.  How to cross-examine forensic scientists: a guide for lawyers , 2014 .

[14]  Claude Roux,et al.  Modern statistical models for forensic fingerprint examinations: a critical review. , 2013, Forensic science international.

[15]  Henry J. Swofford.  Individualization Using Friction Skin Impressions: Scientifically Reliable, Legally Valid , 2012 .

[16]  Brandon Mayfield,et al.  A Review of the FBI ' s Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case , 2006 .

[17]  Christophe Champod,et al.  Overview and Meaning of Identification/Individualization , 2013 .

[18]  Law. Policy.  Executive Summary of the National Academies of Science Reports, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward , 2009 .

[19]  Robert B. Stacey.  Report on the Erroneous Fingerprint Individualization in the Madrid Train Bombing Case , 2005 .

[20]  Jennifer L. Mnookin,et al.  The Need for a Research Culture in the Forensic Sciences , 2011 .

[21]  Duncan J. McCarthy,et al.  Identifying Fingerprint Expertise , 2011, Psychological science.

[22]  David H. Kaye.  Probability, Individualization, and Uniqueness in Forensic Science Evidence: Listening to the Academies , 2009 .

[23]  Cedric Neumann,et al.  Commentary on: Alberink I, de Jongh A, Rodriguez C. Fingermark evidence evaluation based on automated fingerprint identification system matching scores: the effect of different types of conditioning on likelihood ratios. J Forensic Sci 2014; 59(1):70–81. , 2015, Journal of forensic sciences.

[24]  Christophe Champod.  Fingerprint examination: towards more transparency , 2007 .

[25]  Reporting on the comparison and interpretation of pattern evidence: recommendations for forensic specialists , 2012 .

[26]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  K. Martire,et al.  Response to Recommendation 2 of the 2009 NAS Report—Standards for Formatting and Reporting Expert Evaluative Opinions: Where Do We Stand? , 2014 .

[28]  References , 1971 .

[29]  David H. Kaye,et al.  Identification, Individualization, Uniqueness , 2009 .

[30]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Measuring What Latent Fingerprint Examiners Consider Sufficient Information for Individualization Determinations , 2014, PloS one.

[31]  S. Cole.  Individualization is dead, long live individualization! Reforms of reporting practices for fingerprint analysis in the United States , 2014 .

[32]  F Taroni,et al.  Decision theoretic properties of forensic identification: underlying logic and argumentative implications. , 2008, Forensic science international.

[33]  The fine print. , 1994, Journal of the California Dental Association.

[34]  Constance Holden.  Forensic Science Needs a Major Overhaul, Panel Says , 2009, Science.

[35]  David Charlton,et al.  Forensic Comparison and Matching of Fingerprints: Using Quantitative Image Measures for Estimating Error Rates through Understanding and Predicting Difficulty , 2014, PloS one.

[36]  J. Epstein.  Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach, The Report of the Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis , 2012 .

[37]  P. Margot.  ON THE NEED FOR A RESEARCH CULTURE IN THE FORENSIC SCIENCES , 2011 .

[38]  Christophe Champod,et al.  Integration of Pore Features into the Evaluation of Fingerprint Evidence * , 2014, Journal of forensic sciences.

[39]  Cedric Neumann,et al.  Improving the Understanding and the Reliability of the Concept of "Sufficiency" in Friction Ridge Examination , 2014 .

[40]  Christophe Champod,et al.  Evidence evaluation in fingerprint comparison and automated fingerprint identification systems--modelling within finger variability. , 2007, Forensic science international.

[41]  Simon A. Cole,et al.  The ‘Opinionization’ of Fingerprint Evidence , 2008 .

[42]  The Courts, the NAS, and the Future of Forensic Science , 2010 .

[43]  M. Page,et al.  Uniqueness in the forensic identification sciences--fact or fiction? , 2011, Forensic science international.

[44]  Simon A. Cole,et al.  Forensics Without Uniqueness, Conclusions Without Individualization: The New Epistemology of Forensic Identification , 2009 .

[45]  Christophe Champod,et al.  Informing the judgments of fingerprint analysts using quality metric and statistical assessment tools. , 2012, Forensic science international.

[46]  Jonathan J. Koehler,et al.  Individualization Claims in Forensic Science: Still Unwarranted , 2010 .

[47]  I. Dror,et al.  Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[48]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Assessing the clarity of friction ridge impressions. , 2013, Forensic science international.

[49]  I. Dror,et al.  When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top‐down processing on matching fingerprints , 2005 .

[50]  Itiel Dror,et al.  Letter to the Editor—Combating Bias: The Next Step in Fighting Cognitive and Psychological Contamination , 2012, Journal of forensic sciences.

[51]  Beyond Uniqueness: The Birthday Paradox, Source Attribution, and Individualization in Forensic Science Testimony , 2013 .

[52]  Jennifer L. Mnookin.  The Validity of Latent Fingerprint Identification: Confessions of a Fingerprinting Moderate , 2007 .

[53]  G. Langenburg,et al.  A Report of Statistics from Latent Print Casework , 2014 .

[54]  Simon A. Cole,et al.  Who speaks for science? A response to the National Academy of Sciences Report on forensic science , 2010 .

[55]  David Charlton,et al.  Why Experts Make Errors , 2006 .

[56]  Paolo Garbolino,et al.  The subjectivist interpretation of probability and the problem of individualisation in forensic science. , 2013, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[57]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Understanding the sufficiency of information for latent fingerprint value determinations. , 2013, Forensic science international.

[58]  E. Gutiérrez-Redomero,et al.  Distribution of the minutiae in the fingerprints of a sample of the Spanish population. , 2011, Forensic science international.

[59]  Tanuj Kanchan,et al.  The Fingerprint Sourcebook , 2012 .

[60]  Cedric Neumann,et al.  Operational benefits and challenges of the use of fingerprint statistical models: a field study. , 2011, Forensic science international.

[61]  C. Champod.  Research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[62]  G. Edmond,et al.  A guide to interpreting forensic testimony: Scientific approaches to fingerprint evidence , 2014 .

[63]  I. Dror,et al.  Cognitive and contextual influences in determination of latent fingerprint suitability for identification judgments. , 2013, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[64]  Laura Spinney,et al.  Science in court: The fine print , 2010, Nature.