The following question will illustrate the point.ĭo you, as a latent print examiner, believe you can spot a level two artifact in a known record?Īssuming there are not recidivist records of the same individual available, would you agree with the following statement? Such as a related smudge, drag marks, thickening of the ridges etc.Ģ) Is to have such overwhelming agreement elsewhere between the latent and the known record that it would be impossible for the artifact to be real.Īs previously stated, the ability to articulate an artifact is far more challenging in a live scan image. There are only two ways to account and reconcile the presence of a level two artifact feature.ġ) Is to articulate the cause-effects of the feature. The thicker ridges and drag marks seen to the right of the feature show the movement that was made during the acquisition of the print.Ī live scan image would clean up the thicker ridges and drag marks and leave us with no ability to account for the feature “A Absent in boy”. This artifact was created by the ink and paper method of acquiring fingerprints. The feature he marked “A Absent in boy” (top left) is an example of an artifact. The intent of the exercise was not to show an artifact but to show the persistency of friction ridge formations. The earliest known artifact is visible in Sir Francis Galton’s book Finger Prints where he shows the fingerprint of a toddler who was printed when he was nearly three and then again when he was fifteen. They have been evident almost at the outset of fingerprint being used as means to identify people. ![]() ![]() ![]() This becomes critical in a marginal latent environment.Īrtifacts are well known in the fingerprint science world. When a live scan system cleans up the evidence in support of the artifact they leave latent print examiners with the problem of determining if the feature is real or not. In short, they explain their existence because they can, not because they must. Latent print examiners need to be able to account for these features in an honest and logical manner. These level two features are known as artifacts. One of the problems with this process is that, like all methods of obtaining or creating fingerprints, is that occasionally level two features are created that do not exist. Once the images are captured they are processed to “cleanup” the image and to enhance the contrast to make the image easier for an AFIS to process the image when it receives it. An optical block scanner is connected to a computer which has software that controls the process with assistance from the person taking the finger scans. Live scan images are not fingerprints per se, they are finger scans. ![]() there are many examples of the cause – effects of taking poor ink and paper fingerprints but the industry has been muted when it comes to poor live scan images. But what about the pitfalls? In the book Scotts Fingerprint Mechanics by Robert D Olsen Sr. They seem to provide nice clean images as compared to the ink and paper method of obtaining fingerprints and palm prints. The intent behind the use seems legitimate enough, they allow law enforcement a fast means of identifying a given individual, thus avoiding extra paperwork and processes. These devices have been used by law enforcement for a long time. Live scan devices are machines that scan the fingerprints and palm prints of a person and then, in most cases, they forward the processed images to an Automated Fingerprint / Palm print Identification System (AFIS/APFIS) for a search against the records contained within the AFIS’s database.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |