NCJ Number
204666
Journal
Journal of Forensic Identification Volume: 54 Issue: 2 Dated: March/April 2004 Pages: 170-177
Date Published
March 2004
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article provides information about potential DNA sources on common evidence items that are encountered by latent examiners.
Abstract
As States expand the types of offenders that must submit DNA samples, the number of hits between evidence samples and offender samples is expected to increase. When DNA and latent print evidence overlap, the priority of one over the other is often unclear. Although DNA evidence is often collected before the latent section receives the evidence, there may be times when a latent examiner may be best suited to collect and preserve both the latent print and the DNA evidence. To illustrate the value of swabbing for DNA, three case examples are provided. The latent print section in the State of Alaska Crime Lab was tested and experienced about a 50 percent success rate in obtaining DNA profiles on handled objects. There has been a higher success rate for typing saliva stains from cigarette butts and from the mouths of bottles and cans. Sometimes complex, mixed DNA profiles were found, limiting the value of the results. The profiles were useful for comparison when a suspect was identified through other means. Initially there was a concern that the latent print section would be overwhelmed with the task of swabbing items for DNA. That was not the case. Since DNA collection was limited to those cases where the officer did not request the testing, there was only a handful of cases each month that involved a latent examiner swabbing for DNA evidence. These procedures may be useful to other laboratories that want to consider integrating limited DNA collection with their latent print processing. 1 figure, 9 references