The Myth of Fingerprints

From the New York Times:

Future historians of science and law may well date the beginning of the end of fingerprinting to the opening night of the third season of "The Sopranos." Coked to the gills, Christopher Moltisanti, Tony Soprano's nephew, brings Livia Soprano's wake to an absurd anticlimax as he muses on the claim that no two fingerprints are exactly alike. For scientists to know this, Christopher reasons, they would have to get everyone in the world together in one room to check. And not just everyone in the world, but everyone who ever lived. Since this would be impossible -- even using computers -- he concludes, "They got nothin."'

He's right, as it turns out. The claim that no fingerprint has ever appeared twice was first popularized more than a hundred years ago, and by dint of analogy (with other natural objects like snowflakes), lack of contradiction and relentless repetition, this bit of folk wisdom became deeply enshrined. By extension, it lent the technique of forensic fingerprint analysis an aura of infallibility. More than just a useful tool, it came to be regarded as a perfect system of identification, and examiners' testimony at criminal trials came to be practically unassailable.

Until now, that is. In 1998, in Delaware County, Pa., Richard Jackson was sentenced to life in prison for murder based largely on a fingerprint match to which three experts had testified. The defense argued, unsuccessfully, that it was a bad match. But after Jackson spent more than two years in prison the prosecution conceded the error, and he was freed. In Scotland a murder case was upended when detectives found a fingerprint at the scene of the crime that belonged to a police officer -- who claimed she'd never been there in the first place. To verify her claim, she brought in two fingerprint analysts who attested that not only had her fingerprint been misidentified, but so had the print, found on a tin at the home of the accused, originally attributed to the victim.

As these cases suggest, the relevant question isn't whether fingerprints could ever be exactly alike -- it's whether they are ever similar enough to fool a fingerprint examiner. And the answer, it's increasingly, unnervingly clear, is a resounding yes. A recent proficiency test found that as many as one out of five fingerprint examiners misidentified fingerprint samples. In the last three years, defendants in at least 11 criminal cases have filed motions arguing that fingerprinting does not meet even the basic requirements for scientific and technical evidence. The first such challenge -- filed on behalf of Byron Mitchell, who was being tried for robbery -- involved five full days of testimony on the credibility of the technique by leading fingerprint examiners and academic critics, including myself. There's no way to say how these cases, some of which are still on appeal, will be decided, but it is clear that puncturing the myth of fingerprinting's infallibility and scientific validity poses a grave threat to its century-long reign.

But ultimately, the most dangerous threat to fingerprinting may be cultural, not legal. Much of the public's faith in fingerprinting has derived not from law but from culture: from the ubiquitous use of the fingerprint as a metaphor (think of chemical and electronic fingerprints); as an icon (think of advertisements, mystery novels and the Court TV logo) of truth, science and most of all, individual identity. Our fingerprints were unique, and, therefore, so were we. As it happens, a new metaphor has arisen just in time to fill the breach. These days we are increasingly apt to believe that our individuality is vouched for by the unique arrangement of genetic material in our cells. And DNA can now do nearly everything that fingerprinting does. Forensic scientists can recover identifiable DNA samples from ever-smaller traces of biological material, even the stray cells left by the smudge of a finger. Forensic DNA profiling, which has notably shed the early nickname of "DNA fingerprinting," is a perfect match for high-tech millennial sensibilities. Old-style fingerprinting, with its reliance on human observation and its correspondence to a romantic notion of our place in the universe looks . . . well, just so last century.

Full article here.

Interesting Case out of the 9th Circuit on Rules for Computer Searches

En banc, the 9th Circuit, in an opinion by Kozinski, issues a major ruling on how the government is to go about obtaining and executing warrants for computer searches.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/08/26/05-10067eb.pdf

IN RE: SEARCH WARRANTS EXECUTED ON APRIL 8, 2004 AT CDT, INC., In Re, No. 05-55354 ý D.C. No. SEAL 1, CV-04-02887-FMC Plaintiff-Appellant, OPINION v. SEAL 2, Defendant-Appellee.

Argued and Submitted December 18, 2008—Pasadena, California Filed August 26, 2009 Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge,

Here's Kozinski's summary of the new rules:

We accept the reality that such over-seizing is an inherent part of the electronic search process and proceed on the assumption that, when it comes to the seizure of electronic records, this will be far more common than in the days of paper records. This calls for greater vigilance on the part of judicial officers in striking the right balance between the government’s interest in law enforcement and the right of individuals to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The process of segregating electronic data that is seizable from that which is not must not become a vehicle for the government to gain access to data which it has no probable cause to collect. In general, we adopt Tamura’s solution to the problem of necessary over-seizing of evidence: When the government wishes to obtain a warrant to examine a computer hard drive or electronic storage medium in searching for certain incriminating files, or when a search for evidence could result in the seizure of a computer, see, e.g., United States v. Giberson, 527 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2008), magistrate judges must be vigilant in observing the guidance we have set out throughout our opinion, which can be summed up as follows:

1. Magistrates should insist that the government waive reliance upon the
plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases. See p. 11876 supra.

2. Segregation and redaction must be either done by specialized personnel or
an independent third party. See pp. 11880-81 supra. If the segregation is to
be done by government computer personnel, it must agree in the warrant
application that the computer personnel will not disclose to the
investigators any information other than that which is the target of the
warrant.

3. Warrants and subpoenas must disclose the actual risks of destruction of
information as well as prior efforts to seize that information in other
judicial fora. See pp. 11877-78, 11886-87 supra.

4. The government’s search protocol must be designed to uncover only the
information for which it has probable cause, and only that information may
be examined by the case agents. See pp. 11878, 11880-81 supra.

5. The government must destroy or, if the recipient may lawfully possess it,
return non-responsive data, keeping the issuing magistrate informed about
when it has done so and what it has kept. See p. 11881-82 supra.

Picking Cotton: New Memoir Tells the Story of the Human Costs of Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Most people who follow the work of the Innocence Project have heard the tale of Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson-Cannino. Mr. Cotton was wrongfully convicted and spent eleven years in prison after Ms. Thompson-Cannino mistakenly identified him as her attacker. Exonerated by DNA, Mr. Cotton and Ms. Thompson-Cannino have become allies and activists in the Innocence and Eyewitness Identification reform movement. In February, their memoir was published. The memoir focuses on how Mr. Cotton was picked, the journey through court twice, and what came after Mr. Cotton was exonerated. Mr. Cotton and Ms. Thompson-Cannino are currently touring around the country speaking about innocence and eyewitness identification. For more information on the case, click here.
Here is is a video that examine some of the flaws of Eyewitness Identification:

Interpol-U.S. National Central Bureau

The Interpol-U.S. National Central Bureau (USNCB), a component of the U.S. Department of Justice, serves as the United States’ representative to INTERPOL, the International Criminal Police Organization. The USNCB is the central point of contact for all INTERPOL matters in the United States, including secure communications with police authorities in INTERPOL’s 187 member countries and access to INTERPOL’s various databases containing information on wanted persons, terrorists, missing persons, stolen and lost passports and travel documents, stolen vehicles, and other law enforcement information. On a daily basis, the USNCB coordinates and transmits requests for criminal investigative and humanitarian assistance between American federal, state and local law enforcement authorities and their foreign counterparts.

Arson Investigation

InterFIRE.org, is the complete resource for fire services, fire insurers, law enforcement and others whose duties involve arson investigation, fire investigation safety and fire scene training.

Their online training center provides interactive tutorials on critical fire and arson investigation procedures. Their latest topic is First Response from an Investigative Perspective. This interactive tutorial will allow you to view the same incident from the experiences of fire, police and EMS professionals.

Girl Taken in 1991 Surfaces; Couple Held

A 29-year old woman walked into a northern California police station, saying she was abducted 18 years ago, authorities said Thursday. Two people are being held in connection with the case.

Jaycee Dugard is in good health, el Dorado County sheriff's office said in a statement, but provided no further details.

Meanwhile, in Contra Costa County, another sheriff's spokesman confirmed that that a man and a woman have been arrested in connection with the case but could provide no other details.

CNN affiliates have reported that Phillip Garrido, 58, and his wife, Nancy Garrido, have been charged.

Phillip Garrido is a registered sex offender and listed on the Department of Justice's Megan's Law page because of a previous forcible rape charge. Watch an update on the investigation

An officer at the Contra Costa County Jail in Martinez, California, told CNN that the two had been at the jail and both were ordered held on $1 million bail. The officer said the pair was no longer in the jail but that Phillip Garrido had been booked on charges of kidnapping, conspiracy and related offenses. Nancy Garrido was booked on charges of kidnapping and conspiracy.

Earlier Thursday, Carl Probyn, Dugard's stepfather, told CNN that an FBI agent had called his wife, Terry, on Wednesday afternoon to tell her that Dugard had been found.

The blond-haired, blue-eyed 11-year-old was last seen walking to her bus stop in South Lake Tahoe, California, on June 10, 1991, according to the FBI. She was wearing a pink windbreaker and pink stretch pants.

At the time, "it was reported that a vehicle occupied by two individuals drove up to Jaycee Dugard and abducted her in view of her stepfather," the El Dorado County sheriff's office said on Thursday.

Despite extensive investigations, no sign of her or her possible abductors was ever found, authorities said.

Full article at CNN.com here.

Over 500 Organizations Demand White House End Flawed State And Local Immigration Enforcement Program

The American Civil Liberties Union and 520 other local and national organizations sent a letter to President Obama this week demanding that the administration terminate the 287(g) program that allows certain state and local law enforcement agencies to engage in federal immigration enforcement activities. The fundamentally flawed program has been associated with serious civil rights abuses and public safety concerns.

"The 287(g) program encourages racial profiling, diverts scarce police resources and puts everyone's safety at risk," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "State and local police should not be transformed into federal immigration agents – particularly through a program known for cursory oversight and insufficient training. President Obama should end the program immediately."

Local organizations that signed the letter will host vigils, marches and other activities across the country today and tomorrow condemning the administration's decision to expand the 287(g) program and asking that the administration terminate the program.

Since its inception, the 287(g) program has drawn sharp criticism from federal officials, law enforcement and community groups because it has led to illegal racial profiling and civil rights abuses, including the unlawful detention and deportation of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, while diverting scarce resources from traditional local law enforcement functions and distorting immigration enforcement priorities.

This past April, the Police Foundation, a leading nonpartisan, research and training nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public safety, reported that many sheriffs and police chiefs across the country disapprove of the local immigration enforcement program. According to the Police Foundation study, law enforcement executives believe that "immigration enforcement by local police undermines their core public safety mission, diverts scarce resources, increases their exposure to liability and litigation and exacerbates fear in communities already distrustful of police."

"State and local police do not pull drivers over for tax law violations; likewise, they should not pull drivers over for immigration law violations," said Joanne Lin, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "The 287(g) program has proven to be a failure – resulting in rampant illegal profiling by local police under the cloak of federal immigration enforcement power. Department of Homeland Security needs to terminate the 287(g) program."

ACLU affiliates across the country have reported problems and complaints about local law enforcement agencies with 287(g) agreements engaging in profiling and harassing Latino communities. Some of the most serious complaints regard abuses by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona, which has one of the largest 287(g) programs in the country. These massive abuses have been fueled by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's federal authority under the program and the absence of ICE monitoring. In July 2008, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit, Ortega v. Arpaio, against Arpaio and his department challenging the illegal racial profiling of Latinos in Maricopa County.

International Tribunal Takes Up Case Of Innocent Victim Of CIA Extraordinary Rendition Program

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has accepted a petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Khaled El-Masri, an innocent victim of the CIA's extraordinary rendition program. The U.S. government has two months to respond to allegations of kidnapping and torture summarily rejected by U.S. courts in 2007.

"The United States has an opportunity to reverse one of the most shameful legacies of the Bush administration and finally give an innocent victim of the extraordinary rendition program his day in court," said Steven Watt, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program. "The State Department should fully engage in this process and comprehensively address the gross violation of El-Masri's human rights, including his forcible disappearance and torture. To date, the United States hasn't so much as acknowledged its involvement in El-Masri's extraordinary rendition."

In 2003, El-Masri, a German citizen, was kidnapped and flown to a CIA-run "black site" in Afghanistan, where he was secretly detained and tortured for months. Although his innocence was clear soon after his detention, the CIA continued to hold El-Masri for four months before flying him to Albania and abandoning him on a hillside in the dead of night. El-Masri has never been charged with a crime.

In 2005, the ACLU sued former CIA Director George Tenet and three U.S.-based aviation corporations that owned or operated the aircraft used by the CIA to render El-Masri to Afghanistan. The lawsuit charged Tenet and others with violating the U.S. Constitution and universal human rights laws. In March 2007, a federal appeals court dismissed the lawsuit because of the government's assertion of the "state secrets" privilege. The U.S. Supreme Court let that decision stand when it refused to hear the case in October 2007.

"The United States, which has historically been a leader in ensuring access to justice for human rights violations around the world, has effectively closed the courtroom door to all victims of the Bush administration's torture regime," said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "To date, not a single victim of torture by the U.S. has had his day in court. A review of Mr. El-Masri's case by the IACHR will shed much-needed light on the abuses perpetrated against him and will finally offer a victim of the U.S. torture and rendition program a venue in which his claims can be meaningfully addressed."

The Obama administration recently announced that it will continue to render individuals it suspects of involvement in terrorism to detention in other countries, but that it will monitor all cases to ensure that suspects are not mistreated.

"Any transfer of detainees in U.S. custody to other countries must fully comply with domestic and international human rights law," said Jennifer Turner, researcher with the ACLU Human Rights Program. "Examining the Bush administration rendition program and holding accountable those who broke the law will help to ensure that the same mistakes aren't repeated by the Obama administration."

The IACHR is an autonomous body created by mandate of the Organization of American States to promote and protect human rights in the Americas. The ACLU petition asks that the IACHR declare that the extraordinary rendition program violates the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; to find the U.S. responsible for violating El-Masri's rights under that declaration; and to recommend that the U.S. publicly acknowledge and apologize for its role in violating El-Masri's rights through forcible disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture.

Attorneys filing the petition on El-Masri's behalf are Watt, Turner and Jamil Dakwar of the ACLU Human Rights Program and Wizner and Melissa Goodman of the ACLU National Security Project.

The ACLU's petition is available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34837lgl20080409.html

Dirty Martinis for Clean Water

For People Who Like Their Martinis Dirty and Their Water Clean.

To purchase your ticket
call: 509-835-5211
online: www.cforjustice.org/events

Thank you to our sponsors!
Mosaic SalonSpa
Dry Fly Distilling
The Pacific Northwest Inlander
Spokane's River 99.9 FM

All proceeds benefit the Center for Justice's
Spokane River Program.

The Profiles Series - Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners is dedicated to fighting fraud globally. http://www.acfe.com

Sherry Peel Jackson Ex IRS Agent on Income Tax (1 of 2)

Sherry Peel Jackson Ex IRS Agent on Income Tax (2 of 2)