UNIVERSIDAD DE MANILA

Mehan Gardens Campus, Manila

GRADUATE SCHOOL

MASTER OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM MAJOR IN CRIMINOLOGY

PROBATIVE EXAMINATION OF LATENT PRINT

SUBMITTED BY:

MINDY SAN GABRIEL

MCR-C

SUBMITTED TO:

DR. LUISITO B. VIBAR

DEFINITION OF LATENT PRINTS

Are those markings usually rather indistinct, left on any object by oily matters,
colored substances or perspiration exuded from the fingertips, palms of the hand or
soles of the feet that may have touched the item.
CAUSES OF THE MARKINGS
1. Ridges or the raised strip of the epidermis
2. Sweat or perspiration
3. Colored substances
4.
LIFE SPAN IS INFLUENCED BY:
1) Atmospheric conditions including air currents and humidity;
2) Physical condition of the skin of person making the impressions;
3) Type, nature, and condition of the surface, whether porous, absorbent, smooth,
etc., and;
4) Exposure to strong light, heat, or destructive external physical forces.
CLASSIFICATION OF LATENT PRINT
1. Visible Prints/ Patent Prints – easy to locate since they are visible to the
naked eye. Prints smeared with colored substances such as blood, ink,
grease, dust or paint. It is preserved through photographs.

2. Semi-visible or plastic Prints – impressions caused by plastic materials,

such as soap, melted candles, wax, paraffin and adhesive gums leaves a
three-dimensional impression of the finger on the object.. They are preserved
through photographs. are also easy to locate but are less common than
patent prints

3. Invisible Latent Prints – most common types of impressions and are not
seen by the naked eye. The natural oils and residue on fingers leave a
deposit on surfaces which mirror the ridges and furrows that are present on
the individual’s finger. They must be developed through the right kind of
powder and/or chemical to make them visible. They are preserved depending
upon the color of the background, observing the “Principle of Contrast”
through a lifting tape (Mechanical process – using black or aluminum
powders.)

TYPES OF LATENT PRINT

1. CLEAR IMPRESSION- the ridges continuously flows, the center and

junction. Points are clear and visible.
2. PARTIAL IMPRESSION- is only a portion of an impression and not a
complete one. Usually, in a partial impression either the center of the
junction is not printed but sometimes neither of these areas appears.
 3. BLURRED OR FAINT IMPRESSION- takes a various forms that not a
single line is clear or only a few lined maybe sufficiently clear, the center
or the junction or both may not be visible.
4. SMUDGE IMPRESSION- prints are those in distinct cause by moving
object or sliding of the finger at the time they are impressed.
5. FRAGMENTARY IMPRESSION- prints are those that show only a portion
of the pattern or the friction skin.
6. SUPER-IMPOSED IMPRESSIONS- prints having two or more adjoining
impressions of one hand show.

FORENSIC EQUIPMENTS USED IN LATENT FINGERPINT PROCESS

1. FINGERPRINT POWDER – may be used in any surface which is relatively
smooth and non-tacky
2. FINGERPRINT BRUSH – used to spread non- magnetic fingerprint powders in
suspected areas
3. LATENT PRINT POWDER BLOWER - diffuses any color or type of latent print
powder, used to direct powder in accessible areas.
4. MAGNETIC LATENT PRINT POWDER – used to develop latent prints
specifically on paper, cardboard, wood, glass, plastic, leather and other non-
ferrous surfaces
5. MAGNETIC WAND – a superior applicator for any magnetic print powder, used
in conjunction with magnetic powders when dusting on paper, wood, leather,
plastic and other non – ferrous surfaces.
6. LIFTING TAPE – this is used to lift developed latent prints
7. LATENT PRINT CARD – this is where the lifted prints are transferred. it contains
information about the crime, victim and the person lifted the print/s.
8. NINHYDRIN SOLUTION – since it was first used for developing latent
fingerprints in 1954, ninhydrin has become the most common method used to
reveal prints on porous surfaces. The developed prints are high-contrast purple
that readily visible on most paper backgrounds.
9. IODINE FUMING CHAMBER – an environmentally sealed chamber for the
processing of fingerprints with ninhydrin, cyanoacrylate, and iodine.
10. FINGERPRINT COMPARATOR – this is used for side-by-side easy comparison
of fingerprints or any printed material.

“Ken-saku” – is the method of searching activities for finding scene fingerprints and
where they are impressed.
Most scene fingerprints are usually found at the points of Entry, departure and
places ransacked/attacked.
THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED IN SEARCHING LATENT PRINTS
1. Precaution is important, do not remove the object from the original position or
touch with your bare fingers anything that requires fingerprint examination
2. Search of latent prints should be conducted in a systematic way and intelligent
manner.
 3. Amount and quality of powder to be used. The purpose is to develop latent prints
that can be classified, analyzed and identified
4. Objects/tools/weapons/ should be photographed prior to be developing of latent
print including those with visible latent prints and must be provided with sketch to
illustrate relationships between articles of evidence not easily depicted by
photography. Developed and lifted latent prints must be mounted on a Fingerprint
Crime Scene Search Data Form provided with sketch and acknowledgement
signatures of two witnesses plus the signature of the Fingerprint
Technician/Examiner to validate the lifted prints. Documentation is used to
provide an accurate representation of the scene.
LATENT PRINT EVIDENCE CAN TYPICALLY BE DIVIDED INTO TWO
CATEGORIES: POROUS AND NON – POROUS.
 Porous – evidence such as paper, unfinished wood, cardboard, etc., is normally
conducive to the preservation of prints because latent print residue can soak into
the surface.
 Non-porous – evidence such as plastic, glass, metal, foil, etc., is much more
fragile because the latent print residue may just be lying on the surface. Even the
slightest handling can “wipe away” a latent print on non-porous surfaces.

*Borderline or Questionable surfaces- if aren’t sure whether a drop of water

would soak into a surface, go ahead and treat it as non- porous.

METHODS IN DEVELOPING LATENT PRINT

1. IODINE FUMING – takes place in a fuming camber. The process works by heating
up solid crystal iodine which create vapors that adhere to the oily residue of print,
producing brown colored print. It must be photographed quickly because print
fades quickly after the fuming takes place.
2. SILVER NITRATE – when exposed to latent prints reacts with the chloride of the
salt molecules found in print residue, forming silver chloride. When it’s exposed to
ultraviolet light, silver chloride turns black or brown, which make the print visible.
This method works particularly well on impressions left in cardboard and paper-like
surfaces.
3. NINHYDRIN – the object on which the print is located can be dipped in or sprayed
with a ninhydrin solution, which reacts with the oils in the print’s residue to create a
bluish print.
4. LASER ILLUMINATION – creates a contrast between the print and the surface
which exposes the print.
5. MAGNETIC POWDER – often times, to avoid smudging the print, a magnetic
powder technique is used in which the powder is poured on the surface and then
spread evenly over the surface using a magnetic force.
6. SUPER GLUE – is a chemical process that exposes and fixes fingerprints on
nonporous surface. In the lab, an airtight, known as a fuming chamber use to heat
up super glue (liquid cyanoacrylate) which releases gases that adhere to the oily
residue of print, thereby creating an image of the fingerprint. At the crime scene,
 investigators may use a handheld wand that heats up superglue and florescent
dye.
7. AMIDO BLACK – a non-specific protein that reacts with any protein present, is
typically used for developing or enhancing bloody impressions on human skin.
8. ACCU TRANS – a liquid casting compound can be used to lift powdered latent
print from, textured or curved surfaces.
9. METAL EVAPORATION – the fingerprint is developed by first evaporating a thin
layer of gold onto the specimen, followed by a layer of Cadmium which fills in the
print and provides a contrast.
10. BACTERIA – certain bacteria, for example “Acinetobacter Calciacatieus”, can be
used to developed prints on valuable oil paintings. The bacteria in nutrient gel are
pasted onto the surface of the painting, making the print visible as they multiply.
The gel can then simply be wiped off, leaving the painting unaffected.
11. AUTORADIOGRAPHY – radioactive atoms are incorporated into the fingerprint by
placing the piece of fabric into a container containing radioactive gases, such as
Iodine or Sulphur Dioxide, at a humidity of less than 50%. The fabric is then put
into contact with photographic film, and the radioactive atoms cause a picture to
become clear.
12. ALTERNATIVE LIGHT SOURCE – these are laser or LED device that emit a
particular wavelength, or spectrum, of light. For example, investigators may use a
blue light with an orange filter to find latent prints on desk, chairs, computer
equipment or other objects at the scene of a break-in.

BASIS OF THE CHOICE OF WHAT METHOD OR DEVELOPING MEDIUM TO USE

Age of the Latent Print

1) Fresh print (indoor) – one to ten days = use powder or iodine crystal
2) Up to six months old – use silver nitrate solution
3) Older than six months - use ninhydrin solution
Collecting Methods to visible type of latent prints
1) Dust Fingerprint – lifted directly with gelatin paper but if it may peel it off use
photograph;
2) Blood Fingerprint – lifted directly with gelatin paper
3) Oil/grease fingerprint – If dry, it is collected by lifting it onto Binio roll lifter.If not dry,
dry it under a shade then collect it.
HOW LONG DOES A FINGERPRINT REMAIN IN AN OBJECT?
1) Plastic Prints remain for any length of time provided the object on which they are left
or the substance in which they are formed is stable.
2) Prints of fingers contaminated with blood, pigments, ink and oil are more resistant
and can be kept for a long time under favorable conditions.

 Latent prints on glass, china and other smooth objects can remain for years if
they are in a well-protected location.
 Objects open to air, sunlight and rain easily deteriorate.

CAPSAICIN MURDER CASE

On the 26th of April 2016, Dubai police received a call regarding a dead body
that was found in an apartment. Through the investigations, the body with strange red
marks on the nose was found to be tied to the floor with different types of adhesive
tapes, along with a big bottle of water, and a piece of paper with a red powder over it
beside the dead body All items were collected from the crime scene appropriately with
due precautions and diligence by the crime scene experts and were send to be tested
for the latent fingerprint to the fingerprint division of Dubai Police.
Material and Methods: In Dubai Police Forensic lab different types of examinations
were performed on the collected evidences (Figs. 4-9). Ones need to take care about
the destructive and non-destructive techniques of fingerprint development [12]. Like
most of the chemical techniques and powder methods are destructive and once they
are used, no other method can be applicable over the suspected area. Firstly,
cyanoacrylate, also known as super glue to disclose latent fingerprints from non-
porous surfaces, was performed on the collected water bottle. Secondly, Ninhydrin,
which is beneficial in detecting fingerprints from porous and absorbent surfaces, was
employed. The Ninhydrin was used on the piece of paper collected from the crime
scene after carefully removing the red powder traces to preserve the fingerprint from
deterioration. After that Ardrox: a florescent dye stain that is used after cyanoacrylate to
stain the latent fingerprint using ultraviolet light and a digital camera were used. The
sticky side of the tapes was applicated by fingerprint powder carefully over the
suspected area. Finally, the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) was
utilized to compare the suspect’s prints with the database to produce a match and
identify them. The collection of evidence is not in question; the admissibility is lodged
with the court.
Result: All evidences collected from the crime scene were challenging to deal with.
Many times fingerprints serves as a valuable tool including biometric identification.
However, in this particular case use of cyanoacrylate served as the best method due to
the nature of the evidence surface. All the evidences gave a clear, positive result that
goes back to three main suspects involved in the case. The case was completely solved
in less than twenty-four hours. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is always
necessary and beneficial not to overlook the minor evidences like fingerprints in this
case. The culprits were apprehended within 24 hours using the fingerprints only. Also, in
many cases emerging trends of nanotechnology has supported a crucial role in the
fingerprint examination and identification; else it could not have been possible this
quickly.
THE MADRID BOMBINGS AND THE MISTAKEN IDENTIFICATION OF BRANDON
MAYFIELD
On 11 March 2004 a series of bombs devastated Madrid, Spain, killing
191 people and wounding 2050. The bombings were widely assumed to be inspired by
Al Qaeda but there appears to have been the involvement of several disparate groups
and individuals. The trial of 28 accused ran from February to July 2007. At the end of
October 2007, the Audiencia Nacional de España delivered its verdicts. Of the 28
defendants in the trial, 21 were found guilty on a range of charges from forgery to
murder.
In the early stages of the investigation, a blue plastic bag containing
detonators as found near the scene of the bombings at a railway station. A print was
taken from the bag and the FBI in the USA was sent a digital copy of the print. An
American lawyer Brandon Mayfield, who had converted to Islam, was identified by the
FBI as a match to the fingerprint. Mayfield was never charged with a crime but was
arrested by the US authorities as a material witness with possible information about the
Madrid bombing. Court records reveal the process that led to Mayfield arrest in May
2004 and his two-week detention in the Multonmach County Jail in Oregon, USA.
According to the record, Mayfield’s prints were among the best 15 matches found by the
FBI fingerprint computer, which holds the prints of some 45 million persons. Those
matches were then compared by FBI examiners to the digital image of the partial print
sent by the Spanish authorities, who finding 15 matching characteristic concluded that
the print was ‘a100 percent identification’ with Mayfield.
Even as the FBI homed in on Mayfield, Spanish authorities were disputing
the FBI’s fingerprint analysis on the Madrid bag and the identification was not accepted
in Spain. An independent fingerprint expert brought in by the FBI appeared, according
to the court records, to confirm the FBI’s attribution of the print of Mayfield. But
Mayfield’s lawyer said the expert’s report had cautions that were not included in the
FBI’s affidavit (a sworn statement of evidence or fact that can be used in court without
the author necessarily being present).
Although not included in the FBI’s affidavit the expert’s report included
concerns that the quality of the print copy that was received from the Spain was poor
and that the image possibly included an overlay of another print. The expert said that it
was important to see the original image to make a definitive identification.
It was soon recognized that an error had been made and Mayfield was
released. The US attorney said the error was regrettable but that as soon as the
misidentification came to light, federal authorities ‘moved immediately’ to have Mayfield
released. The US Inspector General’s Office released a 273-page report in 2006 on the
Mayfield Affair. The report acknowledges that there were was an ‘unusual similarity’
between the fingerprints, confusing the FBI examiners failed to adhere to the bureau’s
own rules for identifying latent fingerprints and that the FBI’s ‘overconfidence’ in its own
skills prevented it from taking the Spanish police seriously.
Conclusion
 In general, fingerprint use in identification is very reliable, although every
attempt must be made to remove or minimize errors.
 Of all the methods in developing, collecting and matching fingerprints, the most
vital of them all is the Fingerprint Technician/Examiner.

Recommendation

 To avoid the events like what happen in the case of Mayfield. Conduct a
research on the accuracy and error rate of the Fingerprint Technician/Examiner
here in the Philippines so that we can identify what factors can affect in having
accurate fingerprint matching.

REFERENCE
Book:
 An Infallible Science of Identification by Dr. Luisito B. Vibar
Wiseman Books Trading, Inc.
Internet:
 https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/forensic-science/Pages/latent-prints.aspx
 http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/prints/how.html

Case studies:
 A Complicated Murder Case Solved with the Aid of Fingerprints by
Abdulrahman Mohammed Obaid Almehiri, Mohammad Ahmad Abdullah Ahmad
AlSuwaidi, Mohammed Thani Rashid Almarri, Jassim Mohammed Abdullah
Rashid, and Bhoopesh Kumar Sharma
 A Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case