Touch DNA Collection Versus Firearm Fingerprinting: Comparing Evidence Production and Identification Outcomes
A project by a metropolitan police agency in 2008–2009 had police use touch DNA kits to collect cell samples from seized firearms. To assess outcomes, results of touch DNA swabbing of firearms were compared to fingerprinting firearm evidence. The rationale was that fingerprinting, as the older techn...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of forensic sciences 2013-05, Vol.58 (3), p.601-608 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 608 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 601 |
| container_title | Journal of forensic sciences |
| container_volume | 58 |
| creator | Nunn, Samuel |
| description | A project by a metropolitan police agency in 2008–2009 had police use touch DNA kits to collect cell samples from seized firearms. To assess outcomes, results of touch DNA swabbing of firearms were compared to fingerprinting firearm evidence. The rationale was that fingerprinting, as the older technology, was the baseline against which to compare touch DNA. But little is known about ways to measure touch DNA productivity compared to fingerprinting. To examine differences between the two requires comparable measurements. Two measures were used: quantity of probative or investigative evidence produced and identification outcomes. When applied to firearms seized within an Indianapolis, IN police district, touch DNA produced a larger volume of evidence than fingerprinting, but identification outcomes for the two methods were equal. Because touch DNA was deployed by police patrol officers, there are implications for firearm forensics and the choice of forensic approaches used by police. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1556-4029.12119 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1367485634</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2951190261</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4429-3e4fa0655d96bdf1e910f2bce009e4620d26daf02c36f177c9141b6655eb5e143</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkb9v1DAcxS1ERY_CzIYisXRJ69-J2cq1V1qdegwHjJbjfFNckviwE6D_PU7T3sACXr720-c9y34IvSH4hKR1SoSQOcdUnRBKiHqGFnvlOVpgTGme5PIQvYzxDmMsiSQv0CFlXJRcyAXqtn6037Lzm7Ns6dsW7OB8n32BEMeYrVwAE7o0-1sIu-D6Ie3eJ7LbmXS6zS5-uhp6C9mn4OtxNpu-zq6SOrjGWfMgbcbB-g7iK3TQmDbC68d5hD6vLrbLj_l6c3m1PFvnlnOqcga8MVgKUStZ1Q0BRXBDKwsYK-CS4prK2jSYWiYbUhRWEU4qmQxQCSCcHaHjOXcX_I8R4qA7Fy20renBj1ETJgteCsn-B2UlUwKrCX33F3rnx9Cnh0wUV1QpIRJ1OlM2-BgDNDp9XGfCvSZYT6XpqSI9VaQfSkuOt4-5Y9VBveefWkqAmIFfroX7f-Xp69XmKTiffS4O8HvvM-G7lgUrhP56c6nX6kO6hW51yf4AkROu6A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1334929955</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Touch DNA Collection Versus Firearm Fingerprinting: Comparing Evidence Production and Identification Outcomes</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Nunn, Samuel</creator><creatorcontrib>Nunn, Samuel</creatorcontrib><description>A project by a metropolitan police agency in 2008–2009 had police use touch DNA kits to collect cell samples from seized firearms. To assess outcomes, results of touch DNA swabbing of firearms were compared to fingerprinting firearm evidence. The rationale was that fingerprinting, as the older technology, was the baseline against which to compare touch DNA. But little is known about ways to measure touch DNA productivity compared to fingerprinting. To examine differences between the two requires comparable measurements. Two measures were used: quantity of probative or investigative evidence produced and identification outcomes. When applied to firearms seized within an Indianapolis, IN police district, touch DNA produced a larger volume of evidence than fingerprinting, but identification outcomes for the two methods were equal. Because touch DNA was deployed by police patrol officers, there are implications for firearm forensics and the choice of forensic approaches used by police.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-1198</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1556-4029</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.12119</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23458456</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JFSCAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Criminal investigations ; Dermatoglyphics ; DNA - isolation & purification ; DNA Fingerprinting ; DNA fingerprints ; Evidence ; evidence collection ; fingerprinting ; Firearms ; Forensic ballistics ; forensic science ; Humans ; Police ; police forensics ; Touch ; touch DNA</subject><ispartof>Journal of forensic sciences, 2013-05, Vol.58 (3), p.601-608</ispartof><rights>2013 American Academy of Forensic Sciences</rights><rights>2013 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.</rights><rights>Copyright American Society for Testing and Materials May 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4429-3e4fa0655d96bdf1e910f2bce009e4620d26daf02c36f177c9141b6655eb5e143</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4429-3e4fa0655d96bdf1e910f2bce009e4620d26daf02c36f177c9141b6655eb5e143</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1556-4029.12119$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1556-4029.12119$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23458456$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nunn, Samuel</creatorcontrib><title>Touch DNA Collection Versus Firearm Fingerprinting: Comparing Evidence Production and Identification Outcomes</title><title>Journal of forensic sciences</title><addtitle>J Forensic Sci</addtitle><description>A project by a metropolitan police agency in 2008–2009 had police use touch DNA kits to collect cell samples from seized firearms. To assess outcomes, results of touch DNA swabbing of firearms were compared to fingerprinting firearm evidence. The rationale was that fingerprinting, as the older technology, was the baseline against which to compare touch DNA. But little is known about ways to measure touch DNA productivity compared to fingerprinting. To examine differences between the two requires comparable measurements. Two measures were used: quantity of probative or investigative evidence produced and identification outcomes. When applied to firearms seized within an Indianapolis, IN police district, touch DNA produced a larger volume of evidence than fingerprinting, but identification outcomes for the two methods were equal. Because touch DNA was deployed by police patrol officers, there are implications for firearm forensics and the choice of forensic approaches used by police.</description><subject>Criminal investigations</subject><subject>Dermatoglyphics</subject><subject>DNA - isolation & purification</subject><subject>DNA Fingerprinting</subject><subject>DNA fingerprints</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>evidence collection</subject><subject>fingerprinting</subject><subject>Firearms</subject><subject>Forensic ballistics</subject><subject>forensic science</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Police</subject><subject>police forensics</subject><subject>Touch</subject><subject>touch DNA</subject><issn>0022-1198</issn><issn>1556-4029</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkb9v1DAcxS1ERY_CzIYisXRJ69-J2cq1V1qdegwHjJbjfFNckviwE6D_PU7T3sACXr720-c9y34IvSH4hKR1SoSQOcdUnRBKiHqGFnvlOVpgTGme5PIQvYzxDmMsiSQv0CFlXJRcyAXqtn6037Lzm7Ns6dsW7OB8n32BEMeYrVwAE7o0-1sIu-D6Ie3eJ7LbmXS6zS5-uhp6C9mn4OtxNpu-zq6SOrjGWfMgbcbB-g7iK3TQmDbC68d5hD6vLrbLj_l6c3m1PFvnlnOqcga8MVgKUStZ1Q0BRXBDKwsYK-CS4prK2jSYWiYbUhRWEU4qmQxQCSCcHaHjOXcX_I8R4qA7Fy20renBj1ETJgteCsn-B2UlUwKrCX33F3rnx9Cnh0wUV1QpIRJ1OlM2-BgDNDp9XGfCvSZYT6XpqSI9VaQfSkuOt4-5Y9VBveefWkqAmIFfroX7f-Xp69XmKTiffS4O8HvvM-G7lgUrhP56c6nX6kO6hW51yf4AkROu6A</recordid><startdate>201305</startdate><enddate>201305</enddate><creator>Nunn, Samuel</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7TM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201305</creationdate><title>Touch DNA Collection Versus Firearm Fingerprinting: Comparing Evidence Production and Identification Outcomes</title><author>Nunn, Samuel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4429-3e4fa0655d96bdf1e910f2bce009e4620d26daf02c36f177c9141b6655eb5e143</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Criminal investigations</topic><topic>Dermatoglyphics</topic><topic>DNA - isolation & purification</topic><topic>DNA Fingerprinting</topic><topic>DNA fingerprints</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>evidence collection</topic><topic>fingerprinting</topic><topic>Firearms</topic><topic>Forensic ballistics</topic><topic>forensic science</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Police</topic><topic>police forensics</topic><topic>Touch</topic><topic>touch DNA</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nunn, Samuel</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of forensic sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nunn, Samuel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Touch DNA Collection Versus Firearm Fingerprinting: Comparing Evidence Production and Identification Outcomes</atitle><jtitle>Journal of forensic sciences</jtitle><addtitle>J Forensic Sci</addtitle><date>2013-05</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>58</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>601</spage><epage>608</epage><pages>601-608</pages><issn>0022-1198</issn><eissn>1556-4029</eissn><coden>JFSCAS</coden><abstract>A project by a metropolitan police agency in 2008–2009 had police use touch DNA kits to collect cell samples from seized firearms. To assess outcomes, results of touch DNA swabbing of firearms were compared to fingerprinting firearm evidence. The rationale was that fingerprinting, as the older technology, was the baseline against which to compare touch DNA. But little is known about ways to measure touch DNA productivity compared to fingerprinting. To examine differences between the two requires comparable measurements. Two measures were used: quantity of probative or investigative evidence produced and identification outcomes. When applied to firearms seized within an Indianapolis, IN police district, touch DNA produced a larger volume of evidence than fingerprinting, but identification outcomes for the two methods were equal. Because touch DNA was deployed by police patrol officers, there are implications for firearm forensics and the choice of forensic approaches used by police.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>23458456</pmid><doi>10.1111/1556-4029.12119</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-1198 |
| ispartof | Journal of forensic sciences, 2013-05, Vol.58 (3), p.601-608 |
| issn | 0022-1198 1556-4029 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1367485634 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
| subjects | Criminal investigations Dermatoglyphics DNA - isolation & purification DNA Fingerprinting DNA fingerprints Evidence evidence collection fingerprinting Firearms Forensic ballistics forensic science Humans Police police forensics Touch touch DNA |
| title | Touch DNA Collection Versus Firearm Fingerprinting: Comparing Evidence Production and Identification Outcomes |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T17%3A49%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Touch%20DNA%20Collection%20Versus%20Firearm%20Fingerprinting:%20Comparing%20Evidence%20Production%20and%20Identification%20Outcomes&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20forensic%20sciences&rft.au=Nunn,%20Samuel&rft.date=2013-05&rft.volume=58&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=601&rft.epage=608&rft.pages=601-608&rft.issn=0022-1198&rft.eissn=1556-4029&rft.coden=JFSCAS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1556-4029.12119&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2951190261%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1334929955&rft_id=info:pmid/23458456&rfr_iscdi=true |