Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

OSAC	RESEARCH	NEEDS	ASSESSMENT	FORM

Title	of	research	need: National	Footwear	Database/Reference	Collection

Keyword(s): Database,	National,	Footwear,	Collections,	References

Submitting	subcommittee(s): Footwear	&	Tire Date	Approved: 07-Mar-2016

(If	SAC	review	identifies	additional	subcommittees,	add	them	to	the	box	above.)

Background	Information:

1. Description	of	research	need:

There	is	a	gap	in	the	U.S.	in	the	area	of	footwear	intelligence.	This	gap	is	both	technological	and	

programmatic.	Law	enforcement	agencies	outside	the	U.S,	such	as	those	in	the	U.K.	and	China,	are	currently	

gathering	footwear	intelligence	for	the	purpose	of	linking	crimes	and	individuals	and	providing	the	identity	

(i.e.,	the	make	and	model)	of	the	source	footwear.	However,	this	effort	has	never	been	undertaken	at	a	

national	level	in	the	U.S.	Currently,	examiners	in	U.S.	laboratories	provide	investigators	with	footwear	

make/model	information	based	on	corresponding	features	observed	in	the	pattern	at	the	crime	scene;	but,	

they	make	little	to	no	effort	to	link	crimes	or	link	offenders	to	crimes	based	on	footwear	and	the	

impressions	they	make.	This	is	because	there	is	no	national	information-sharing	infrastructure	in	place	to	

facilitate	this	effort	at	this	time.	Some	agencies	have	implemented	local	footwear	intelligence	programs	and	

have	been	successful	at	that	level.	Just	as	fingerprints	and	DNA	can	serve	to	link	individuals	to	crimes,	

footwear	and	the	impressions	they	leave	also	have	that	ability.	Therefore,	there	is	additional	intelligence	

that	could	be	acquired	from	criminal	and	terroristic	acts	using	footwear.	A	national	footwear	database	

would	fill	a	huge	void	in	the	U.S.	intelligence	arena.

The	research	described	here	should	focus	on	creating	a	prototype	for	a	nationwide	IT	infrastructure	to	

enable	inter-agency	communication	related	to	footwear	evidence	collected	from	booking	stations,	crime	

scenes	and	laboratories.	The	infrastructure	should	be	designed	around	three	subsets	of	information:	

offender	footwear,	crime	scene	footwear	impressions	and	reference	footwear.	There	is	a	need	to	extract	

pattern	information,	preferably	automatically	using	pattern-recognition	algorithms	with	minimal	manual	

coding,	from	the	footwear	patterns	represented	in	the	three	subsets	of	the	database.	The	pattern	

information	then	needs	to	be	searchable	for	the	purpose	of	identifying	potential	links	between	offenders,	

crimes	and/or	reference	materials.	Currently,	there	is	no	nexus	between	law	enforcement	and	the	footwear	

industry.	Therefore,	this	research	should	identify	potential	sources	and	methods	for	collecting	footwear	

reference	data	and	inclusion	of	that	data	into	the	database.	In	addition	to	gathering	footwear	intelligence,	

there	is	a	desire	from	the	footwear/tire	community	to	extract	frequency	of	occurrence	of	footwear	class	

characteristics,	including	outsole	design	(i.e.,	pattern),	and	manufacturer’s	size,	for	those	records	contained	
Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

in	the	database.	The	footwear/tire	community	envisions	an	infrastructure	similar	to	that	which	supports	

AFIS,	CODIS	and	NIBIN.

2. Key	bibliographic	references	relating	to	this	research	need:

AlGarni,	G.	&	Hamiane,	M.	(2008).	A	novel	technique	for	automatic	shoeprint	retrieval.	Forensic	Science	

International,	181,	10-14.

David,	R.	(1981).	An	intelligence	approach	to	footwear	and	toolmarks.	Journal	of	the	Forensic	Science	

Society,	21,	183–193.

Geradts,	Z.	&	Keijzer,	J.	(1996).	The	image-database	REBEZO	for	shoeprints	with	developments	on	automatic	

classification	of	shoe	outsole	designs.	Forensic	Science	International,	82(1),	21-31.

Lai,	M.-Y.	&	Wang,	L.-L.	(2008).	Automatic	shoe-pattern	boundary	extraction	by	image-processing	

techniques.	Robotics	and	Computer-Integrated	Manufacturing,	24,	217-227.

Majamaa,	H.	(2000).	Footwear	databases	used	in	police	and	forensic	laboratories.	Information

Bulletin	for	Shoeprint/Toolmark	Examiners,	6,	133–157.

Milne,	R.	(2012).	Forensic	intelligence.	Boca	Raton:	Taylor	&	Francis.

Milne,	R.	(2001).	Operation	Bigfoot,	a	volume	crime	database	project.	Science	&	Justice,	41,	215–217.

Needham,	J.	A.	&	Sharp,	J.	S.	(2016).	Watch	your	step!	A	frustrated	total	internal	reflection	approach	to	

forensic	footwear	imaging.	Science	Reports,	6,	Article	number:	21290.	doi:10.1038/srep21290.

Pavlou,	M.	&	Allinson,	N.	M.	(2009).	Automated encoding	of	footwear	patterns	for	fast	indexing.	Image	and	

Vision	Computing,	27(4),	402–409.

Ribaux,	O.,	Girod,	A.,	Walsh,	S.	J.,	Margot,	P.,	Mizrahi,	S.	&	Clivaz,	V.	(2003).	Forensic	intelligence	and	crime	

analysis.	Law,	Probability	and	Risk,	2,	47–60.

3a. In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	current	laboratory	capabilities?

The	results	would	lay	the	groundwork	for	a	national	resource	that	could	be	used	by	laboratories	to	collect,	

search	and	disseminate	information	related	to	footwear	impression	evidence.	Many	laboratories	in	the	U.S.	

are	not	conducting	any	type	of	footwear	database	searching	so	this	would	be	a	new	service	provided	by	

many	laboratories	to	their	customers.	In	addition	to	the	laboratories	being	able	to	provide	make/model	

information,	the	national	footwear	database	would	enable	laboratories	to	incorporate	footwear evidence	

into	their	forensic	intelligence	programs	and	help	investigators	identify	potential	links.	A	national	effort	

supported	by	IT	and	users	at	various	levels	of	law	enforcement	(e.g.,	arresting	officers,	crime	scene	techs,	

laboratory	examiners)	has	potential	to	grow	the	database	quickly	and	decrease	the	amount	of	time	it	takes	
Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

to	provide	database	search	results	to	the	field.	The	contents	of	the	database	could	also	be	used	by	

examiners	for	comparison	purposes.	This	database	has	great	potential	to	increase	awareness	of	footwear	

impression	evidence	thus	increasing	the	volume	of	this	type	of	collected	from	crime	scenes	and	the	quality	

of	that	evidence.

3b. In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	understanding	of	the	scientific	basis	for	the	

subcommittee(s)?

The	results	of	the	research	could	enable	the	extraction	of	frequency	information	for	footwear	class	

characteristics,	such	as	make/brand,	outsole	design	and	manufacturer’s	size.	This	frequency	information	

could	be	used	to	help	the	examiner	attribute	a	level	of	significance	to	the	class	characteristics	of	the	

evidence.

3c.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	services	to	the	criminal	justice	system?

Currently,	the	response	time	for	providing	intelligence	related	to	footwear	and tire	impression	evidence	

pales	by	comparison	to	other	disciplines	such	as	fingerprints	and	DNA.	Additionally,	the	information	

provided	is	limited	to	make/model	information.	However,	the	outcome	of	this	research	could	decrease	

turnaround	times	for	providing	footwear	make/model	information	to	field	personnel	who	are	actively	

engaged	in	investigating	criminal/terroristic	acts.	It	could	also	assist	field	personnel	with	linking	crimes	and	

individuals	to	crimes.	An	increase	in	the	use	of	footwear	evidence	for	intelligence	purposes	could	lead	to	

easier	identification	of	suspects	and	ultimately	more	solved	crimes.		In	addition,	the	class	characteristic/	

frequency	information	that	could	be	extracted	from	the	database	could	provide	additional	information	to	

the	examiner	that	may	improve	his/her	ability	to	attribute	weight	to	the	evidence	and	subsequently	

communicate	that	weight	to	the	criminal	justice	system	in	a	transparent	manner.

4.		Status	assessment	(I,	II,	III,	or	IV): I Major gap	in	

current	

knowledge

Minor	gap	in	

current	

knowledge

No	or	limited

current	research	

is	being	conducted

I III

Existing current	

research	is	being	

conducted

II IV

This	research	need	has	been	identified	by	one	or	more	subcommittees	of	OSAC	and	is	being	provided	as	an	

informational	resource	to	the	community.
Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

Approvals:

Subcommittee Approval	date: 07-Mar-2016

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	subcommittee.	Once	approved,	forward	to	SAC.)

SAC

1.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	research	need? Yes x No

2.	 Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	status	assessment? Yes x No

If	no,	what	is	the	status	assessment	of	the	SAC:

Approval	date: 17-Mar-2016

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	SAC.		Once	approved,	forward	to	NIST	for	posting.)