Document #16 Standard for the Technical Review of Friction 

Ridge Examinations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 09/1/11 Current Issue Date 11/16/12

Web Posting Date 11/24/12

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2016 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

1 of 4

Document #16

Standard for the Technical Review of Friction Ridge Examinations

(Latent/Tenprint)

1. Preamble

1.1. Technical review is an integral part of a quality assurance program. The American Society of Crime 

Laboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) defines technical review as “A 

review of notes, documents, and other data that forms the basis for a scientific conclusion” [1]. 

1.2. Other data may include images, charts, annotated images, narratives, worksheets, annotated legible 

copies, sketches, Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) or electronic records, or any 

combination of these. Forensic Quality Services (FQS) defines technical review as “...an evaluation of 

the case record to ensure that there is an appropriate and sufficient basis for the scientific conclusions.” 

[2] The case record may include digital or physical files of latent lifts, printed photographs, chain of 

custody forms, exemplars, case notes, requests, and reports [3]. 

1.3. A technical review differs from an administrative review. An administrative review is conducted in order 

to determine the clerical accuracy of reports and case documentation and to ensure the examiner has 

followed agency policy and procedure. Administrative review shall be conducted on all cases [4]. 

Administrative reviewers do not have to be trained to competency in friction ridge examination.

2. Scope

Technical reviews focus on whether the appropriate tests and examinations have been performed to support 

the results and conclusions reported, and whether sufficient supporting documentation is present. Technical 

reviews also focus on whether the conclusions are consistent with the documentation and are within accepted 

practices [4]. 

3. A technical review will determine if:

3.1. The appropriate examinations have been performed.

3.2. The conclusions are consistent with the documented data and are within accepted practices.

3.3. There is sufficient supporting documentation.

3.4. Verifications have been completely and properly documented.

3.5. The reported results are clear, concise, accurate, and complete [4]. 
Document #16 Standard for the Technical Review of Friction 

Ridge Examinations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 09/1/11 Current Issue Date 11/16/12

Web Posting Date 11/24/12

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2016 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

2 of 4

4. Technical review is not synonymous with the verification phase of the ACE-V process, nor does it 

necessarily include the re-examination of the images in a case.

4.1. Verification is a separate process from technical review. Verification is the independent application of 

the ACE process to arrive at a conclusion. By contrast, technical review considers all the 

documentation in the case record that supports the basis for the scientific conclusion.

4.2. A technical review may not be completed by the original examiner. Technical review and verification 

may be completed by the same reviewing examiner. 

4.3. Technical review and verification may be conducted concurrently.

5. Technical reviews should be conducted on all cases. At a minimum, they shall be conducted on a 

regular basis according to the following: 

5.1. On certain types of cases as defined by the agency.

5.2. On a percentage of cases as defined by the agency or an accrediting body.

6. A technical reviewer shall be an examiner trained to competency in the aspects of the friction ridge 

examination being reviewed [5]. 

7. Technical reviews shall be documented in the case record. Some examples of technical review 

documentation include:

7.1. An entry of the reviewer’s initials and date in the case record.

7.2. A component of a Laboratory Information Management System that electronically captures the 

reviewing user ID and date stamp.

7.3. A completed checklist that refers to information required by agency specific policies or procedures 

(See Appendix A).

8. The agency shall have clearly documented procedures to handle discrepancies found during 

technical review [4]. 

9. References

[1] ASCLD/LAB 2008 Manual.

[2] Forensic Quality Services – International: FRA 4 – Forensic Requirements for Agencies that Perform 

Latent Print Testing.

[3] SWGFAST, Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACEV) (Latent), 9/11/12, ver. 2.0.

[4] SWGFAST, Standard for a Quality Assurance Program in Friction Ridge Examinations, 9/11/12, ver. 5.0.

[5] SWGFAST, Standards for Minimum Qualifications and Training to Competency for Friction Ridge 

Examiner Trainees (Latent/Tenprint), 11/16/12, ver. 2.0.
Document #16 Standard for the Technical Review of Friction 

Ridge Examinations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 09/1/11 Current Issue Date 11/16/12

Web Posting Date 11/24/12

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2016 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

3 of 4

Appendix A

The presence of items on this checklist does not imply that they are required. Each agency may create a 

checklist that addresses its own policies and procedures.

YES NO N/A NOTES

   Are the notes legible and proper?

   Do the notes indicate that a proper inventory was conducted and completely documented? 

   Are the notes organized, neat and understandable?

   Are the notes pages consecutively numbered? 

YES NO N/A SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

   Are all charts, photographs or photocopies, used to support conclusions in the case file?

   Has all relevant digital evidence been accounted for? 

   Are all charts, photographs or photocopies numbered and properly labeled?

   Have appropriate reagent checks been conducted and documentation included in the case 

file?

YES NO N/A EXAMINATION PROCESS 

   Have appropriate tests/exams been performed according to the agency’s protocols?

   Have evidence processing techniques been conducted in the proper sequence?

   Has the verification process been properly documented?

   Are the conclusions fully supported by the data?

YES NO N/A DRAFT REPORT

   Is the report format and wording in accordance with Operating Manual and standard 

protocol?

   Have the requested examinations been addressed?

   Are the results properly transcribed and clearly communicated to the reader?

   Are appropriate additional samples/standards/exemplars being requested, if needed?

   Is the evidence submission inventoried and is disposition included?

NOTES/REMARKS

INSTRUCTIONS: The examiner and reviewer must explain all "NO" responses that were not corrected.
Document #16 Standard for the Technical Review of Friction 

Ridge Examinations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 09/1/11 Current Issue Date 11/16/12

Web Posting Date 11/24/12

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2016 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

4 of 4

10. Revision Table

Version Effective Start Effective End Posted Archived Change

1.0 09/13/11 11/16/12 10/26/11 11/16/12 Original issue

2.0 11/16/12 N/A 11/24/12 N/A No change to content

Reformatted (start of new 

version number)