A Question for LEOs about fingerprints

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

Trace is left by everyone all the time where they have been. An example is dead skin cells. They contain DNA, better than a finger print.

I LOL'd at this...not that it's not true, just that there being enough skin cells on something like a gun to actually use for a dna test seems pretty far fetched. Then being able to prove where it came from if it was that small.......

I remember for a while there was a big press for DNA collection (to the point that they were talking about swabbing traffic stops or some bs). I wondered if they aren't recording the blood they take for DOT and other dept physicals...talk about sneaky, anyone know if they do this?

[OneGuy67]

I verified my information with someone very much "in the know" on the fingerprint cards and CCW, school applicants, daycare workers, etc., what SA Friday calls "blue card fingerprints".

Apparently, they are all scanned and retained in AFIS, the FBI database. If one of these people were to be arrested and fingerprinted criminally, a flag is produced the agency who submitted the fingerprint cards would be notified. So, say Mr. School Teacher passed a background check and his fingerprints were submitted as a part of said background check, and Mr. School Teacher gets caught diddling a kid in another jurisdiction or state, once his prints are forwarded to the FBI and a match is made, the school district or whomever did the background check is notified. If he had a CCW, the Sheriff's Office would also be notified.

I hope that clarifies the subject some.

[OneGuy67]

I LOL'd at this...not that it's not true, just that there being enough skin cells on something like a gun to actually use for a dna test seems pretty far fetched. Then being able to prove where it came from if it was that small.......

I remember for a while there was a big press for DNA collection (to the point that they were talking about swabbing traffic stops or some bs). I wondered if they aren't recording the blood they take for DOT and other dept physicals...talk about sneaky, anyone know if they do this?

Just touching a firearm and having that area swabbed will most likely produce viable DNA. All they need is a couple of cells now. Very cool as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, just having the DNA being present doesn't necessarily mean anything. It doesn't date/time stamp the contact when the transfer occured. Additional investigation is needed to assist in the use of the DNA for prosecution.

They passed 'Katie's Law' in 2010 in which all individuals arrested for felony crimes are swabbed for DNA at the time of arrest. This has resulted in 9 sex assault cases, 3 criminal mischief cases and 28 property crime cases including arson, burglary, robbery and theft that were identified in the first four months of its start. This may be what you were referring to?

[Bailey Guns]

I worked in Booking in the JeffCo jail for a short time before I went to the Patrol Division. Of course, we fingerprinted all intakes.

Occasionally, when the right guy came along - usually an amiable drunk - we'd convince him we needed a "nose print" in addition to fingerprints.

Invariably they'd ask why. Our explanation was we had a lot of unsolved burglary cases and the nose prints were needed to build a database in order to identify burglars in the community. "Think about it," we'd tell the guy. "What happens when you put your face up against a window to look inside a building?" It's like a light would come on. "Yeah...you leave a nose print on the window."

It was pretty hilarious to watch a drunk take the ink roller and try to roll it across his nose without getting ink all over his face. It was even funnier to watch them try to "roll" their noses across the back of a fingerprint card.

Working in the jail sucked but there were some special moments.

[Graves]

[Lol]

^Yep, safari sucks.

[Byte Stryke]

I worked in Booking in the JeffCo jail for a short time before I went to the Patrol Division. Of course, we fingerprinted all intakes.

Occasionally, when the right guy came along - usually an amiable drunk - we'd convince him we needed a "nose print" in addition to fingerprints.

Invariably they'd ask why. Our explanation was we had a lot of unsolved burglary cases and the nose prints were needed to build a database in order to identify burglars in the community. "Think about it," we'd tell the guy. "What happens when you put your face up against a window to look inside a building?" It's like a light would come on. "Yeah...you leave a nose print on the window."

It was pretty hilarious to watch a drunk take the ink roller and try to roll it across his nose without getting ink all over his face. It was even funnier to watch them try to "roll" their noses across the back of a fingerprint card.

Working in the jail sucked but there were some special moments.

BAD COP!
No DONUT!

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

Just touching a firearm and having that area swabbed will most likely produce viable DNA. All they need is a couple of cells now. Very cool as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, just having the DNA being present doesn't necessarily mean anything. It doesn't date/time stamp the contact when the transfer occured. Additional investigation is needed to assist in the use of the DNA for prosecution.

They passed 'Katie's Law' in 2010 in which all individuals arrested for felony crimes are swabbed for DNA at the time of arrest. This has resulted in 9 sex assault cases, 3 criminal mischief cases and 28 property crime cases including arson, burglary, robbery and theft that were identified in the first four months of its start. This may be what you were referring to?

Not the "Katie's Law" though maybe that is when it came about. I remember even seeing talk on local news about proposed swabbing at traffic stops/etc to fill the database. Completely unconstitutional so likely it was shot down. I was more proposing a conspiracy theory we thought of the other day....that every cop, fireman, truck driver, pilot, etc. that was submitted to bi-annual or annual bloodwork already had their dna on file.

Hell, it could go as far as anyone who has had any bloodwork done, including anyone who has had a kid in the last couple decades since they do bloodwork on the mother to test for drugs or whatnot - without warrant might I add.

And why would you use WD40? Why not some boric acid, brake clean, bleach, or ammonia..... or just completely destroy any evidence? Or like previously pointed out....don't be a dumbass? If you have the foresight to bring a can of WD-40, you apparently spent enough time thinking about it to realize it was a bad idea in the first place

[Byte Stryke]

And why would you use WD40? Why not some boric acid, brake clean, bleach, or ammonia..... or just completely destroy any evidence? Or like previously pointed out....don't be a dumbass? If you have the foresight to bring a can of WD-40, you apparently spent enough time thinking about it to realize it was a bad idea in the first place

this is what I was thinking...

"hmm need to remove oily fingerprints... BRAKE CLEAN!"


But yeah, I Agree, if you put that much forethought into it you should realize its not a good idea to begin with.

[sniper7]

criminals make me laugh.

[Mtn.man]

Now there's a funny show,,, Worlds Dumbest.