Fingerprinting is a forensic science technique that has been used for over 100 years to identify individuals based on the unique patterns found on the fingertips. Fingerprints have long been considered a reliable way to match a person to a crime scene or document. However, fingerprint analysis is not foolproof and is susceptible to both accidental and intentional errors. Understanding the most common mistakes can help improve accuracy and prevent wrongful accusations.
The Basics of Fingerprinting
Before diving into the mistakes, it helps to understand how fingerprint analysis works. Fingerprints are made up of ridges and furrows that form distinctive patterns such as arches, loops, and whorls. The points where ridges end abruptly or split into two (called minutiae) provide details that distinguish one print from another. Examiners visually compare prints found at crime scenes to those taken from suspects or databases. Matches are declared when a sufficient number of minutiae correspond between two prints.
Lack of ACE-V Methodology
One of the most prevalent errors comes from failure to follow standardized procedures known as ACE-V:
Analysis – Examine the unknown print to assess pattern types and minutiae locations
Comparison – Visually compare the unknown against known prints to determine any agreement in details
Evaluation – Verify that correspondences satisfy sufficiency requirements for a match
Verification – Have another examiner independently repeat steps A-E to confirm the initial conclusion
Skipping or inadequately performing any of these steps can lead to mistakes. Analysis helps avoid missing key details that distinguish prints. Comparison prevents false positives from overstating similarities. Evaluation is critical for objectively assessing sufficiency. And verification acts as a check against individual examiner biases and limits the impact of any errors made.
Bias and Subjectivity
Fingerprint examiners are vulnerable to psychological biases – just like anyone else. Contextual information about a case or suspect has the potential to influence their judgments. There is also subjectivity inherent in the ACE process when determining if prints have enough agreement to be considered matches. This can lead to inconsistent conclusions between examiners. Blind analysis, where the examiner does not know the context of the case, and strict sufficiency thresholds help counteract these issues. But more checks and balances are needed.
Overreliance on Technology
Automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS) now allow prints to be compared against millions of others digitally. This database searching capability enables identifying unknown prints that were unusable before computers. However, overreliance on AFIS matching scores can also lead to mistakes. AFIS algorithms do not replicate human expertise and judgment. Candidate lists still need careful visual verification to avoid false positives. And non-matching scores do not preclude the possibility of a human examiner finding sufficient agreement if allowed to do comparisons manually. Technology assists the process but has not made human review obsolete.
Lack of Proficiency Testing
In addition to the ACE-V process, examiners need rigorous and ongoing proficiency testing to minimize mistakes. These tests evaluate competence through unknown samples and provide quality feedback for improvement. However, many labs still lack robust programs for regularly monitoring performance. And there are no consensus standards around issues like criteria for passing, retesting procedures and continuing education to correct any deficiencies found. Strong proficiency testing reduces errors by enhancing skills, improving techniques and identifying areas needing more training.
Contamination
Crime scenes typically yield partial prints fragmented over various surfaces. Lifting these effectively requires care to prevent contamination. Fingerprint brushes, powder and lifting tape must be kept clean using techniques like tape rolls and disposable brushes. Prolonged pressure can also damage ridges and furrows, distorting prints and obscuring details. Cross-contamination between surfaces creates misleading associations between prints and locations or objects. And allowing excessive movement of items spreads prints from their original positions. Careful handling preserves prints intact and avoids misleading connections.
Misinterpretation of Evidence
The most accurate conclusions come from examining the fingerprint evidence objectively before considering any other case details. Looking at prints in context introduces bias. For example, being told prints are from the crime scene versus the suspect subtly influences examiners toward finding consistencies or differences to confirm those assumptions. Classifying prints based purely on visual characteristics avoids this bias. Only after classification are crime scene prints compared to known suspects. Sequence and blinding prevent context from producing preconceived notions that affect comparisons.
Lack of Documentation
Thorough documentation provides a transparent record of the procedures used and conclusions reached in fingerprint examination. Adequate notes allow verification of analyses to detect mistakes. Detailed documentation also conveys the rationale behind a match for critical review by others. The failure to properly document processes and observations introduces ambiguity and gives the impression of concealing errors or questionable decisions. Detailed notes reinforce integrity, accountability and clarity.
Insufficient Training and Qualifications
Competent fingerprint analysis requires extensive training under qualified instructors along with certification testing. Self-taught individuals or those with limited formal instruction often make serious mistakes in procedures, comparisons and conclusions. Yet some agencies allow examiners to work cases without sufficient qualifications. Minimum standards should mandate training requirements, apprenticeships under veteran examiners and external certification based on testing. Ongoing education through courses and workshops is also essential for maintaining expertise. Proper qualifications verify examiners have the necessary foundation.
Inadequate Quality Control and Oversight
Even qualified examiners make occasional mistakes that quality control measures should catch. But many labs lack adequate oversight procedures. Reviews by supervisors and secondary verifications of evidence are inconsistently enforced. And there is no universal external auditing system to detect issues across different labs and jurisdictions. Installing better quality controls prevents individual mistakes from contributing to wrongful arrests or convictions. Quality supervision, evidence reviews and transparent external audits maintain high accuracy standards.
Lack of Research and Funding
Improving fingerprinting practices relies partly on scientific research to establish foundational validity, determine error rates and assess reliability under varied conditions. But fingerprints have not received nearly the extensive academic study as other forensic disciplines like DNA analysis. And most operational labs do not have a research function or access to university collaborations. More funding and partnerships to support studies on factors like examiner skills, new technologies and bias susceptibility will strengthen the scientific foundations.
Dishonesty
Unfortunately, there are always some individuals who engage in willful misconduct even within respected professions. Forensic scandals have included falsification of credentials, manipulation of evidence, lying about analyses and withholding exculpatory results. Most examiners maintain high ethical standards. But poor training and oversight creates opportunities for the dishonest. Extensive vetting, strict protocols, audits and transparent procedures help deter deliberate malfeasance and easier detection if it occurs.
Cognitive Issues
Even experienced, ethical examiners can make errors in perception or judgment due to human cognitive limitations. Fatigue, distractions or time pressure increase chances for mistakes. Confirmation bias can lead to seeing consistency in prints where lessobjective observers would disagree. Procedures relying on human vision, subjective assessments and memories are inherently prone to some degree of error. Adding safeguards like blind analysis, strict comparison criteria, verification steps and technology assists lessens risks from human cognitive factors.
Misrepresenting Source and Significance
Another common mistake comes from examiners overstating the evidentiary value of fingerprints. Source attribution goes beyond saying two prints match. However, it is impossible to prove the person who left a print is the only possible source in the world. Significance also gets misrepresented when courtroom testimony declares matches have zero error rate – contradicting scientific research. Accuracy improves when examiners stick to empirically defensible statements on similarity, with the investigating agency determining actual sources and weighing all case evidence for attributions.
Lack of Openness to Defense Experts
Access for outside experts to independently re-analyze evidence helps find potential mistakes by existing examiners. But some labs resist transparency and place burdens on providing copies and technical details to defense consultants. Full cooperation speeds resolution when findings conflict, instead of stonewalling. Granting qualified fingerprint experts proper access, regardless of which side they work with, demonstrates confidence in the original examination while further reducing chances of errors going undetected.
Inadequate Re-examination after Errors
When mistakes come to light, thorough re-examination should occur on any previous cases handled by that examiner to check if other errors escaped notice. But too often there is resistance to the time and effort required for this level of follow-up. Limiting the scope prevents fully correcting the damage from wrong conclusions. Prioritizing integrity in identifying innocent people impacted takes precedence over reluctance to admit flaws. Comprehensive re-checking demonstrates commitment to fixing errors, not hiding them.
Accidental Errors
Even with extensive training and precautions, accidental mistakes still occur. Examiners may misjudge the corresponding points between two complex prints, make an oversight due to fatigue or improperly classify subtle patterns. Lapses in concentration from workplace distractions can also contribute to errors. No procedure achieves perfection. Carefulness and vigilance during analysis naturally reduce unintended mistakes. But realistic acceptance that some oversights will slip through emphasizes adding redundancy through verification, oversight, proficiency testing and openness to outside review.
Conclusion
While fingerprinting remains one of the most reliable forensic identification techniques, it is not infallible. However, the vast majority of mistakes stem from correctable human factors and lack of standardized practices, not any inherent scientific deficiency. Implementing proper training, methodologies, documentation, technology assists, research, oversight and a culture of transparency will minimize errors. Continuous improvement driven by acknowledging vulnerabilities makes fingerprinting even more trustworthy. With sound practices in place, fingerprints continue providing high confidence for establishing identity and connecting people with key events.
