Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2012 | Page 51

FORENSICS JOURNAL

The Effects of Paper-Packaging Material on the
Quality of Latent Print Evidence
Stephanie Witt
A review was conducted of 18 state laboratory manuals.1 These 18
sources concurred as noted: 1) strict attention to processing procedures used for latent print evidence is required in order to ensure
quality prints are obtained; 2) objects collected must undergo minimal handling; 3) the object’s position in the packaging material must
ensure latent prints are not exposed to i.e. contamination by the
material; 4) exposure to the packaging material may cause friction
thus damaging or destroying prints. Areas of divergence among the
agencies include: 1) four state laboratory manuals2 specifically prohibited non-porous latent print evidence from being packaged in plastic
material; 2) two manuals3 recommended evidence be processed at the
scene rather than transported to the laboratory for initial testing.

INTRODUCTION
Fingerprints are one of the most revelatory types of forensic evidence
that a crime scene may yield. The process of linking a suspect to a
crime scene or to another person by the presence of his or her fingerprints is crucial during the investigation of a case. Fingerprints allow
investigators to make a positive determination as to who might have
touched, or come in contact with, objects found at a crime scene.
COLLECTING, PACKAGING, AND TRANSPORTING LATENT
PRINT EVIDENCE
Owing to the fragile nature of latent prints, a crime scene technician
must determine if latent print evidence should be processed at the
crime scene, or packaged, collected, and transported to a laboratory.
If the evidence is processed at the crime scene, fingerprint powder
is generally used. If the evidence is transported to a laboratory,
more sophisticated techniques may be employed. While the use of
advanced methods may prove beneficial to the preservation of the
prints, the actual collection and processing process may compromise
the evidence prior to its arrival at the laboratory. For this reason, it is
imperative that proper collection and packaging procedures be followed in the processing of latent print evidence.

Although manuals suggested that latent print evidence be packaged
such that the surfaces of the evidence do not come in contact with
the packaging material, no manual offered suggestions as to how to
achieve this goal. Some research studies suggest suspending the object
in a box during transportation. Issues with this approach include: cost
of supplies; man-hours; practical application; and failure to follow
recommended protocols.
This research was limited to testing commonplace methods currently
in use to ascertain overall efficacy, reliability, and replicability. The
most effective packaging method may be the simplest, a plain paper
bag.

The procedures for collecting and packaging latent print evidence
vary among agencies and among individual crime scene technicians.
A myriad of packaging materials are available to forensic laboratories.
Types of packaging material currently in use include: paper or plastic
bags, cardboard boxes, metal tins, paper or plastic envelopes. The type
of packaging material used is critical as some material may compromise or destroy the latent prints more than others. Previous research
suggests that plastic materials have the potential to damage latent
prints. For example, the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences
Division, Crime Scene Unit Standard Operating Procedures Manual
states the following, “Never use plastic bags as containers for they
tend to cling to the object and may damage a latent print of impression” (MSD-FSD Crime Scene, 3/25/2011, § 2.5.10).

EXPERIMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The present research was limited in scope and design: determine if
paper-packaging material affects the quality of latent prints when
objects found at a crime scene are collected, packaged, and transported to a laboratory for testing or tested on scene. Latent prints
were placed onto objects, and the objects were either packaged in
paper bags, or remained unpackaged. Packaged objects were then
transported to and from the laboratory prior to being tested. Unpackaged objects represented evidence processed at the crime scene.
Owing to the random nature of latent print evidence, a variety of
donors, mediums for deposit, and ages of prints were evaluated (See
Table 1).

The author reviewed 18 state laboratory manuals. The state agencies are as follows: California Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Sciences, Colorado Bureau of Investigation, Connecticut Department of Public Safety Division of Scientific Services, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Illinois State
Police, Missouri State Highway Patrol, Montana State Crime Laboratory, New Jersey State Police, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Ohio Division of State Fire
Marshal Forensic Laboratory, Oregon State Police, Rhode Island State Crime Laboratory, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Texas Department of Public Safety, Washington
State Patrol Forensic Laboratory Services Bureau, West Virginia State Police, and Virginia Department of Forensic Sciences.

1

2

Colorado Bureau of Investigation, New Jersey State Police, Ohio Division of State Fire Marshal Forensic Laboratory, and Virginia Department of Forensic Science.

3

Washington State Patrol Forensic Laboratory, Bureau of Investigation, and Virginia Department of Forensic Sciences.

49