Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
)
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.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.
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.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.
I was wondering why once they get the exemplar, they need another set of prints every 5 years. I wouldthink less than perfect should be good enough the second or third time around. I think the answer is that they are the government, so common sense isn't a requirement.LarryH wrote: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.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.
IMHO. IANAL. IANALEO.
I think you're right.Liberty wrote:I was wondering why once they get the exemplar, they need another set of prints every 5 years. I wouldthink less than perfect should be good enough the second or third time around. I think the answer is that they are the government, so common sense isn't a requirement.
LGT wrote:
My advice is that if your ink prints fail the first time, do the FAST laser printing, because you will see on the screen, before they print the cards, if your prints will be good enough.
absolutely; except, that I'd send F.A.S.T. prints witth applicatiom.
This is incorrect. In fact, the FBI must accept the prints on the third set, and I believe DPS makes that their policy also.LGT*** wrote:Now, if I remember correctly, the instructor for my class said something along the lines of:
If you send in prints 3 times to DPS, and they fail, you have to retake the entire class and shooting portion. So basically, you pass "Go," pay $200 dollars and start over.
In theory yes, but the converse would mean that an applicant could be perpetually rejected if they had fingers that could not be printed to the standards required by the DPS or FBI. Plus, the prints have to be taken by a LEO or someone certified to "roll prints" and there's not much chance they would intentionally roll bad prints. If caught, they could be prosecuted, not to mention lose their job.LGT*** wrote:wouldn't that mean that you could just give them unreadable prints three times over?
