Understanding the sufficiency of information for latent fingerprint value determinations

Forensic Science International

Volumn 230, Issue 1-3, 2013, Pages 99-106

  Ulery, Bradford T ^a   Hicklin, R Austin ^a   Kiebuzinski, George I ^a   Roberts, Maria Antonia ^b   Buscaglia, JoAnn ^b  

^a NOBLIS   (United States)

^b Federal Bureau of Investigation   (United States)

Author keywords

Biometrics; Fingermark; Fingerprint analysis; Fingerprint value; Friction ridge examination; Latent fingerprint

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY;

EID: 84879602063     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: 18726283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.01.012     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology, 2011, Standard terminology of friction ridge examination, ver.3.0. <>. http://swgfast.org/documents/terminology/110323_Standard-Terminology_3.0.pdf.
2. Ulery B.T., Hicklin R.A., Buscaglia J., Roberts M.A. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2011, 108(19):7733-7738. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/19/7733.full.pdf.
3. Hicklin R.A., et al. Latent fingerprint quality: a survey of examiners. J. Forensic Ident. 2011, 61(4):385-418.
4. Ulery B.T., Hicklin R.A., Buscaglia J., Roberts M.A. Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:3. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032800.
5. Huber R.A. Expert witness. Crim. Law Q. 1959, 2:276-296.
6. Ashbaugh D. Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Ridgeology 1999, CRC Press, New York.
7. Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis, Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach; NIST Interagency Report 7842, 2012. <>. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm%3Fpub_id=910745.
8. SWGFAST, Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and Resulting Conclusions, ver 1.0. 2011. <>. http://swgfast.org/documents/examinations-conclusions/110913_Examinations-Conclusions_1.0.pdf.
9. Locard E. L'enquêtecriminelle et les méthodesscientifiques 1920, Ernest Flammarion, Paris, pp. 129-130. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt%3Fid=njp.32101068784956.
10. SWGFAST, Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) (Latent), ver 1.0, 2010.
11. SWGFAST, Individualization/Identification Position Statement, ver 1.0, 2012, <>. http://swgfast.org/Comments-Positions/120306_Individualization-Identification.pdf.
12. Farelo A. Fingerprints survey 2011. Conference Presentation, 7th Intl. Symp. on Fingerprints 2012.
13. Exposito Marquez N. La Acreditacion del Metodo de Identificacion Lofoscopico en la Guarda Civil. 7th Intl. Symp. on Fingerprints (conference presentation) 2012.
14. Riemen Netherlands case study: auto encoding of latents. 7th Intl. Symp. on Fingerprints (conference presentation) 2012.
15. Evett I.W., Williams R.L. A review of the Sixteen Point Fingerprint Standard in England and Wales. J. Forensic Ident. 1996, 46(January/February (1)). (also published in Fingerprint World, 21 (82), October, 1995).
16. Campbell, The Fingerprint Inquiry; Part 6, The Law and Practice of Fingerprints - Chapter 32 The Sixteen Point Standard; 14 December 2011. <>. http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotland.org.uk/inquiry/3127.html.
17. Report of the Standardization Committee of the International Association for Identification, Identification News, August 1973, p. 13. <>. http://www.latent-prints.com/images/IAI%201973%20Resolution.pdf.
18. Budowle B., Buscaglia J., Schwartz Perlman R. Review of the scientific basis for friction ridge comparisons as a means of identification: committee findings and recommendations. Forensic Sci. Commun. 2006, 8. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2006/research/2006_01_research02.htm.
19. M. Indovina, V. Dvornychenko, R.A. Hicklin, G.I. Kiebuzinski, ELFT-EFS Evaluation of Latent Fingerprint Technologies: Extended Feature Sets, Evaluation #2; NIST Interagency Report 7859, 2012. <>. doi:10.6028/NIST.IR.7859.
20. Langenburg G., Champod C., Genessay T. Informing the judgments of fingerprint analysts using quality metric and statistical assessment tools. Forensic Sci. Int. 2012, 219:183-198.
21. Schiffer B., Champod C. The potential (negative) influence of observational biases at the analysis stage of finger mark individualization. Forensic Sci. Int. 2007, 167:116-120.
22. Dror I.E., et al. Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: inter- and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a 'target' comparison. Forensic Sci. Int. 2011, 208:10-17.
23. R.A. Hicklin, J. Buscaglia, M.A. Roberts, Assessing the clarity of friction ridge impressions, Forensic Sci. Int., (2013), doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.12.015.
24. ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011, NIST Special Publication 500-290 Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint, Facial & Other Biometric Information. <>. http://www.nist.gov/itl/iad/ig/ansi_standard.cfm.
25. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Universal Latent Workstation (ULW). <>. http://www.fbibiospecs.org/Latent/LatentPrintServices.aspx.
26. R.A. Hicklin, Guidelines for Extended Feature Set Markup of Friction Ridge Images; Working Draft Version 0.3, 12 June 2009. [Note: This document has been formalized in "Markup Instructions for Extended Friction Ridge Features", version 1.0, March 2012. <>.]. http://www.noblis.org/interop.
27. Vanderkolk J. Forensic Comparative Science: Qualitative Quantitative Source Determination of Unique Impressions, Images, and Objects 2009, Academic Press, Burlington Massachusetts, San Diego California, London UK.