TexasCHLforum.com

LarryH wrote:

Liberty wrote:If we have been fingerprinted once, I don't understand why they need need the set taken years later to be so perfect. If they can get prints from a glass why do they reject so many as less than perfect? I never understood that.

When you are comparing fingerprints taken at the scene of a crime to a standard print (sometimes called an "exemplar, , on CSI, anyway), the exemplar should be as perfect as possible. Comparing junk prints to other junk prints will yield a lot of false negatives (failures to compare) and/or "positives" that could be vulnerable to a clever defense lawyer.

IMHO. IANAL. IANALEO.

fn/form wrote:You would be surprised what are submitted to the Feds as "print" cards. Cards with one hand printed only (for two handed people), thumbs only, 1/3 finger pad, blotches instead of ridge detail, one print across two finge spaces, etc. USELESS for entry into any database.

So, the Feds have had to reiterate what a full set of prints is, and they've really tightened their acceptance criteria (stating the obvious and practicing it). ALL fingers from both hands, nail bed to nail bed, within borders, etc., in hopes of upholding the "gold standard" of prints as positive, unique ID. This standard is also used by the State, not everyone follows it exactly, and it's probably a common reason print cards are rejected.