In December 2009, the State v. Anderson case again brought to the fore the importance of a biometric criminal identification system. The fact is that Richard P. Anderson was found guilty by the trial judge and sentenced to 20 years in prison. However, Anderson tried to challenge his verdict in the Court of Appeal, arguing that the judge who sentenced him to prison made a mistake (“State v Anderson”, n.d.). According to him, the provided card with fingerprints was unauthenticated.
In the procedural story, this investigation was launched after Priscilla Ward noticed that someone broke into her house through the window and stole valuables and weapons. Stephen Hardee, who was in charge of the investigation, took two distinct fingerprints from the shattered window. In an attempt to identify the person, the county police addressed Jeffrey Gause who could be regarded as an expert in the field of analysis and study of fingerprints. To check them through the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), he used a digital camera that takes pictures of the captured fingerprint. Then, the system tries to recognize these fingerprints in the database. The selection takes place according to various parameters and most often offers twenty matches.
After that, the operator must do the hard and meticulous work of examining the prints and comparing them. From the details of the crest and pattern, he determines which of the suspects suggested by the computer is the most appropriate. Thus, Gause proved that the prints from the crime scene matched the card stored in the FBI and TRAIL file system. Anderson’s lawyer said that the court was mistaken in recognizing the only evidence in the case without the testimony of the person who took these same fingerprints. However, the Court of Appeal still found the suspect guilty.
This case is a prime example of how sometimes the only clue in the form of a fingerprint can be the main clue in the search for the culprit. With its main purposes to obtain, store, and review information received from fingerprints, the AFIS system is fundamental in the investigation of criminal cases (National Commission of Forensic Sciences, n.d.). However, its use is substantially limited as it requires excellent operator skill in distinguishing between linear troughs, minima, bifurcations and ridges as well as technology competence. All in all, AFIS has been successfully fulfilling its primary goal, and thousands of different cases are being solved thanks to them.
References
State v Anderson. (n.d.). Findlaw.
National Commission of Forensic Sciences. (n.d.). Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) interoperability[PDF document].