Processing Latent Fingerprints--What are the Payoffs?
ResearchPublished 1976
This comparative analysis of the physical evidence collection and processing efforts in six police departments shows that a heavier investment in evidence technicians and a policy of routinely dispatching technicians to all felony crime scenes produces a higher print recovery rate, yet does not affect the rate at which fingerprint identifications serve to identify suspects. Regardless of organizational differences in response time, percentage of reported crimes processed, and the type of personnel responsible for processing the site (police or civilian), only four to nine percent of all latent prints are eventually matched with a suspect's inked prints. This study recommends that the print identification process in larger police departments should be facilitated by arranging the print files by geographical area, with a fingerprint specialist assigned to each area. It is also suggested that an information system should be devised to link investigators and fingerprint specialists. This should help promote the reciprocal exchange of information. 27 pp.
Document Details
- Copyright: RAND Corporation
- Availability: Available
- Year: 1976
- Print Format: Paperback
- Paperback Pages: 27
- Paperback Price: $20.00
- Document Number: P-5571
Citation
RAND Style Manual
Chicago Manual of Style
Petersilia, Joan R., Processing Latent Fingerprints--What are the Payoffs? RAND Corporation, P-5571, 1976. As of September 23, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P5571.html
Petersilia, Joan R., Processing Latent Fingerprints--What are the Payoffs? Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1976. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P5571.html. Also available in print form.
This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.