Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

The other day I was working on a case involving, among other things, two cashier's checks which I believed were forged. Both checks were (supposedly) from a nationally-known bank and I called the nearest branch (about thirty minutes away) and asked if I could bring the cashier's checks in to compare them to genuine ones. The person I spoke with said I could come in anytime.

I drove over to NY to the nearest branch and, after being shuffled around quite a bit, wound up in the manager's office while she spoke with her corporate headquarters. She had me repeat several times what I wanted and kept relaying it to someone on the phone. She asked if I had a warrant and I told her I really didn't think I needed one since I wasn't looking for anyone's information. She was very condescending and said, "You need a warrant for pretty much everything." Then she kept talking on the phone for another five minutes.

She finally got off the phone and told me she couldn't give me any information without a search warrant. I couldn't believe it, so I (politely) explained again that all I wanted was for her to look at a couple of cashier's checks and tell me if they looked like the ones issued by her bank. She sighed heavily but this time said she "didn't think" she could give me any information without a warrant.

I asked her if I could buy a cashier's check for the sum of one dollar so I could see for myself if it looked like the two I had that I suspected to be forgeries. She said she supposed I could. I asked if I would need a warrant for that and she said, "Of course not." I waited (patiently, I thought) for her to come to the only logical conclusion and after a few seconds she told me to wait outside while she made another phone call.

Five minutes later she came out and showed me one of her bank's cashier's checks. After looking at that one I could easily see the two I had were forgeries. The manager offered to look at mine and also thought they were forgeries. I thanked her (without any sarcasm) and left.



Am I the only one thinking WTF??? I know they want to be careful about giving away customer information, but a little common sense goes a long way. If I had an account at that bank I'd close it out.

The other day I was working on a case involving, among other things, two cashier's checks which I believed were forged. Both checks were (supposedly) from a nationally-known bank and I called the nearest branch (about thirty minutes away) and asked if I could bring the cashier's checks in to compare them to genuine ones. The person I spoke with said I could come in anytime.

I drove over to NY to the nearest branch and, after being shuffled around quite a bit, wound up in the manager's office while she spoke with her corporate headquarters. She had me repeat several times what I wanted and kept relaying it to someone on the phone. She asked if I had a warrant and I told her I really didn't think I needed one since I wasn't looking for anyone's information. She was very condescending and said, "You need a warrant for pretty much everything." Then she kept talking on the phone for another five minutes.

She finally got off the phone and told me she couldn't give me any information without a search warrant. I couldn't believe it, so I (politely) explained again that all I wanted was for her to look at a couple of cashier's checks and tell me if they looked like the ones issued by her bank. She sighed heavily but this time said she "didn't think" she could give me any information without a warrant.

I asked her if I could buy a cashier's check for the sum of one dollar so I could see for myself if it looked like the two I had that I suspected to be forgeries. She said she supposed I could. I asked if I would need a warrant for that and she said, "Of course not." I waited (patiently, I thought) for her to come to the only logical conclusion and after a few seconds she told me to wait outside while she made another phone call.

Five minutes later she came out and showed me one of her bank's cashier's checks. After looking at that one I could easily see the two I had were forgeries. The manager offered to look at mine and also thought they were forgeries. I thanked her (without any sarcasm) and left.



Am I the only one thinking WTF??? I know they want to be careful about giving away customer information, but a little common sense goes a long way. If I had an account at that bank I'd close it out.

One time at my old department I went to a bank in FULL UNIFORM to try to retrieve the address of one of their customers. I can't remember what type of case it was, it may have been a hit and run in front of the bank where the fleeing vehicle was a customer of theirs or something along those lines.

They would not give it to me, even after stating that I was a law enforcement officer (in case the uniform didn't already give it away :rolleyes:) conducting an investigation. I ended up getting it some other way but they definitely made my **** list.

One time at my old department I went to a bank in FULL UNIFORM to try to retrieve the address of one of their customers. I can't remember what type of case it was, it may have been a hit and run in front of the bank where the fleeing vehicle was a customer of theirs or something along those lines.

They would not give it to me, even after stating that I was a law enforcement officer (in case the uniform didn't already give it away :rolleyes:) conducting an investigation. I ended up getting it some other way but they definitely made my **** list.

They have no obligation to furnish information on customers and frankly, with the litigation practices of this country, I really don't blame them. Especially since if you had a name, there were lots of other ways to obtain that info w/o involving them. If I owned a business and knew you had other means to get that, I'd be hesitant too. If I was the only one that knew, it might be different.

But refusing to show them what a blank cashiers check looks like is just dumb. That doesn't violate the privacy of anyone.

Everyone in the banking business has the heebie jeebies today over identity theft where it borders on paranoia. There are some tellers who wouldn't cash their mother's SS check without some form of photo ID.
Thinking that you could be a LEO in disguise, you were lucky the woman allowed you in her office without a formal letter of introduction:uhoh:

That was pretty good thinking about buying a check for $1. I can see them asking for a subpoena or something but not if you are just wanting to see what a cashiers check looks like. What in the heck were they thinking that you needed a search warrant. To search for what???

I had a call to the Credit Union for a female attempting to cash a check with fake ID on an check that had been reported stolen. When I got there, the Manager refused to hand over the stolen check without a subpoena. I reminded her she was the one that called, and was possessing stolen property which was my only evidence keeping the suspect from going free. I then called the bank security inside the corporate office and filed a complaint. She was gone about two months later, I don't know if it had anything to do with my complaint or not.

Everyone in the banking business has the heebie jeebies today over identity theft where it borders on paranoia. There are some tellers who wouldn't cash their mother's SS check without some form of photo ID.
Thinking that you could be a LEO in disguise, you were lucky the woman allowed you in her office without a formal letter of introduction:uhoh:

Ha! Not in the area I used to work. They would cash the most bogus checks with the shadiest signatures from the seediest people. I also had very good luck with the banks there but it was a very small city. And now that I work in a larger area I've found the people to be no where near as good to work with.

That was pretty good thinking about buying a check for $1. I can see them asking for a subpoena or something but not if you are just wanting to see what a cashiers check looks like. What in the heck were they thinking that you needed a search warrant. To search for what???

I had a call to the Credit Union for a female attempting to cash a check with fake ID on an check that had been reported stolen. When I got there, the Manager refused to hand over the stolen check without a subpoena. I reminded her she was the one that called, and was possessing stolen property which was my only evidence keeping the suspect from going free. I then called the bank security inside the corporate office and filed a complaint. She was gone about two months later, I don't know if it had anything to do with my complaint or not.

If the manager calls up and has the only evidence, then there's 2 options:

a) arrest them for obstruction
b) determine that you don't have probable cause, and let the person go free, and leave the bank.

Ha! Not in the area I used to work. They would cash the most bogus checks with the shadiest signatures from the seediest people. I also had very good luck with the banks there but it was a very small city. And now that I work in a larger area I've found the people to be no where near as good to work with.


That's probably because big cities have more lawyers in them. Especially since 9-11 the government has been pushing to get more and more info on citizens. And giving that info out has caused some headaches in the form of lawsuits against businesses by people they've provided it on. I've read about several such suits around here just for that.

There was a time I could call the local telephone security and get unlisted phone info over the phone. They first tightened it down to where they would give it to me immediately as long as I promised to send a subpoena to them right away. Well, apparently some cops broke their promise and by the time I left, I needed to fax a subpoena to them before they would give it to me. And no doubt there were reasons for that change that originated in court.

But to quote Ron White, you can't fix stupid. Not handing over a stolen check as evidence and refusing to show the police what a blank cashiers check looks like fits into that category.

They have no obligation to furnish information on customers and frankly, with the litigation practices of this country, I really don't blame them. Especially since if you had a name, there were lots of other ways to obtain that info w/o involving them. If I owned a business and knew you had other means to get that, I'd be hesitant too. If I was the only one that knew, it might be different.

But refusing to show them what a blank cashiers check looks like is just dumb. That doesn't violate the privacy of anyone.

It was the first available resource at the time while I was on scene. Could have saved me some time but wtf do they care.

LoL!! Guess banks change. The only dealings I ever had with one was when I rolled up on two hijackers coming out the front door of a local bank. Since they were both carrying, I put 'em down. Bank got their money back, and through the Sheriff gave me a plaque, and an engraved Colt Nat'l Match with a $100 dollar bill rolled up in the barrel! :beer:

The other day I was working on a case involving, among other things, two cashier's checks which I believed were forged. Both checks were (supposedly) from a nationally-known bank and I called the nearest branch (about thirty minutes away) and asked if I could bring the cashier's checks in to compare them to genuine ones. The person I spoke with said I could come in anytime.

I drove over to NY to the nearest branch and, after being shuffled around quite a bit, wound up in the manager's office while she spoke with her corporate headquarters. She had me repeat several times what I wanted and kept relaying it to someone on the phone. She asked if I had a warrant and I told her I really didn't think I needed one since I wasn't looking for anyone's information. She was very condescending and said, "You need a warrant for pretty much everything." Then she kept talking on the phone for another five minutes.

She finally got off the phone and told me she couldn't give me any information without a search warrant. I couldn't believe it, so I (politely) explained again that all I wanted was for her to look at a couple of cashier's checks and tell me if they looked like the ones issued by her bank. She sighed heavily but this time said she "didn't think" she could give me any information without a warrant.

I asked her if I could buy a cashier's check for the sum of one dollar so I could see for myself if it looked like the two I had that I suspected to be forgeries. She said she supposed I could. I asked if I would need a warrant for that and she said, "Of course not." I waited (patiently, I thought) for her to come to the only logical conclusion and after a few seconds she told me to wait outside while she made another phone call.

Five minutes later she came out and showed me one of her bank's cashier's checks. After looking at that one I could easily see the two I had were forgeries. The manager offered to look at mine and also thought they were forgeries. I thanked her (without any sarcasm) and left.



Am I the only one thinking WTF??? I know they want to be careful about giving away customer information, but a little common sense goes a long way. If I had an account at that bank I'd close it out.

Seeing all the bonehead things in the news lately, I'm betting it was Bank of America.

It was the first available resource at the time while I was on scene. Could have saved me some time but wtf do they care.

It's not a matter of caring, Greg. It's a matter of legal ramifications for them. It would be nice if the rest of the world were there for our convenience, but unfortunately, they have their own concerns and problems.

That's probably because big cities have more lawyers in them. .

I don't think thats it. I think people in larger communities have a very inflated sense of self worth about themselves. They think EVERYONE owes them something.

Yes we are in a very sue happy society but you can't live scared of it every day.

Yes we are in a very sue happy society but you can't live scared of it every day.

Litigation forms policy for a lot of companies and especially government. It's not a personal thing, the people are following the policy set down by their bosses. It's not a matter to the individual of being sued, it's losing their jobs.

Hell, half of our General Orders were written as a direct result of lawsuits and/or court rulings.

We tend to think that everyone should help us because we're the good guys. But a lot of people have had it backfire on them, especially big companies with deep pockets. And governments too.

It's pretty rare that your case is so important that you can't take the time to get a search warrant or subpoena and let everyone off the hook anyway.

It's not a matter of caring, Greg. It's a matter of legal ramifications for them. It would be nice if the rest of the world were there for our convenience, but unfortunately, they have their own concerns and problems.

I'll still hate them until the day I die.

I'll still hate them until the day I die.

Good to know you get let things go....:db:

Good to know you get let things go....:db:

I definitely hold grudges, not typically in the job atmosphere though. You can't take that stuff personally.

I'm just kidding though I don't even work in that town anymore what would I care...

I'll still hate them until the day I die.

Did they point and laugh?:fire:

While we're on "people's private information"....most people don't realize how much information are on their vehicle registration plates. Im talking Name, DOB, and Address. Ive even ran tags that have the owners DL number and Social Security number. I was like...:uhoh:

I don't think much of anything is private anymore, if you know where to go a person could find out pretty much anything about anyone....

There are websites that anyone can use, (im sure its mostly for private investigators), and run a vehicle's tag to get the owner information. Of course you have to pay/sign up. Same goes to get the owner of a phone number that keeps calling you.

I don't think thats it. I think people in larger communities have a very inflated sense of self worth about themselves. They think EVERYONE owes them something.

Yes we are in a very sue happy society but you can't live scared of it every day.

People are people Darin and they all think alike whether they live in large or small communities. I live in a pretty large city and damn sure don't have what you call an inflated sense of self worth or think anyone owes me anything.

There have always been sue happy people out there looking for ways to make an easy buck since day one. And that's one of the reasons why I always obtained the necessary legal documents before jumping the gun and screwing up a case or opening myself up to a law suit. It took a little longer, but I was always comfortable when taking a case to court.

People are people Darin and they all think alike whether they live in large or small communities. I live in a pretty large city and damn sure don't have what you call an inflated sense of self worth or think anyone owes me anything.
.

Bill, there's a huge difference in the people from small town America to bigger city/community. I know not everyone has that attitude but the bigger majority do. I see it every day that I work. The people aren't as friendly. I went from a place that actually appreciated the police and what they do. The citizens where i work now wants to complain at the drop of a hat. It's not just the citizens either.

Bill, there's a huge difference in the people from small town America to bigger city/community. I know not everyone has that attitude but the bigger majority do. I see it every day that I work. The people aren't as friendly. I went from a place that actually appreciated the police and what they do. The citizens where i work now wants to complain at the drop of a hat. It's not just the citizens either.

I agree with that. That's why I worked in a big city and lived in a small town. Working as a cop, I didn't want that familiarity, but as a resident I love it. I couldn't have cared less about complaints, I preferred the anonymity. When I worked uniform, I knew most of the bad guys on my district, but they knew nothing personal about me. Without even trying, I know where 3 of the 27 cops in my town live.

But most banks are still huge corporations that have set down firm policy on just about everything. Small town or not, the people working there have to follow that policy if they want to stay employed.

For what it's worth.....

Right to Financial Privacy Act (http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/RFPA.htm)

For what it's worth.....

Right to Financial Privacy Act (http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/RFPA.htm)

That pretty much answers why. Thanks.

On of the things I used to do when investigating financial crime was put the bank down as a victim if they had any financial loss from the event.

I would ask for information from them as a victim. Some would give information without a warrant and would be able to recieve compensation if it was ordered in a plea agreement or trial.

If they refused saying they wanted a warrant i would mark them off as an an uncooperative/non-compliant victim and close the case or proceed with whatever I could on the other victim(s).

Putting them as a victim gained more voluntary compliance and has allowed me to get into larger fraud rings to make arrests.

On of the things I used to do when investigating financial crime was put the bank down as a victim if they had any financial loss from the event.

I would ask for information from them as a victim. Some would give information without a warrant and would be able to recieve compensation if it was ordered in a plea agreement or trial.

If they refused saying they wanted a warrant i would mark them off as an an uncooperative/non-compliant victim and close the case or proceed with whatever I could on the other victim(s).

Putting them as a victim gained more voluntary compliance and has allowed me to get into larger fraud rings to make arrests.

I never heard of a bank refusing to cooperate with my department in a fraud investigation involving them or one of their customers.

The cooperation stops when we want info from them that has nothing to do with an investigation directly impacting their bank. They just don't want to be a police data file.

I have had them refuse and request warrants when they were a victim and so was their customer. I have had them refuse to provide account info when the victim/customer was with me. It happened enough for me to conduct investgations in that manner. I thought it was an overly cautious employee until It happened on a regular basis. Getting some of the banks "fraud investgators" to return calls took an act of god. Not all banks were like this but a few. I will never conduct any personal business with any of these companies.

Getting some of the banks "fraud investgators" to return calls took an act of god.

Half the bank fraud investigators here are retired police fraud investigators so that's rarely a problem here....

I never worked fraud so I have no personal experience, but I am friends with several and they often talked about their good relationships with banks. Maybe because we're a training ground for their investigators.....:grin:

Its usually the banks that are a problem from the start that never return calls and that have no direct lines. Some of the banks are great.

I'm glad I don't deal with it much anymore.

I think that some of these banks should be named so that active Cops can know who they shouldn't be personally dealing with. Just my .02. :wink:

I deal near totally with my local Credit Union. ;)

Tulsa Teachers Credit Union and Arvest Bank for me:biggrin5:

Ive never had any problems with them:biggrin5:

I have been told by banks I need a SW for the following.

The phone number to the fraud department.

Surveillance video.

The value of the ATM machine that was damaged.

The name of the clerk who helped the suspect.

The fax number to send my warrant to.

Once I had a bank report embezzlement to my agency then refused to tell me anything further without a search warrant.

Then I have been told that since the home office of the bank or whatever institution, is in another state I need a federal warrant or a warrant in that other state.


My favorite is when I have the mindless automaton telling me their refusal to cooperate is Ok because its company policy. They regurgitate the term "Company Policy" over and over again because its all they know. I have a little speech for this I like to call the Kalahari Flea story.

I tell them that as we speak, an African Bushman is walking across the Kalahari desert and in doing so he has just been bitten by a sand flea. I then tell them that I am not going to try to make them believe that I care about that Bushman or his little flea bite, but I do want them to know I care more about his flea bite than I care about their company policy.

Dang Garbage Man, those are some great ones.

I just hate banks period. I deal with them as little as possible.

On the personal side of things, I had a check for $2500 one time that we cashed in January. We got notice in about August that we had overdrawn by that same amount. My wife tried getting it resolved with the bank over the phone and they said we had to show up in person. They accused her of not balancing the checkbook correctly and then suggested she was involved in some kind of scam or fraud.

This was 5/3 bank by the way. We went to the main branch locally and sat down with Customer Service. They said that we cashed the same check twice, eight months apart. My question, how the hell do you cash the same check twice, doesn't the bank keep the check after you cash it?

One they started suggesting the fraud or scam again, I asked them if they had notified the Police which of course they had not. I got my work cell phone and told them I would call the local secret service agent and start my own investigation on my end as I suspected the bank was involved. Shortly after I was offered all sorts of apologies and the problem would be taken care of immediately. It turned out it was a computer error where they processed the check in Missouri.

I have been told by banks I need a SW for the following.

The phone number to the fraud department.

Surveillance video.

The value of the ATM machine that was damaged.

The name of the clerk who helped the suspect.

The fax number to send my warrant to.

Once I had a bank report embezzlement to my agency then refused to tell me anything further without a search warrant.

Then I have been told that since the home office of the bank or whatever institution, is in another state I need a federal warrant or a warrant in that other state.


My favorite is when I have the mindless automaton telling me their refusal to cooperate is Ok because its company policy. They regurgitate the term "Company Policy" over and over again because its all they know. I have a little speech for this I like to call the Kalahari Flea story.

I tell them that as we speak, an African Bushman is walking across the Kalahari desert and in doing so he has just been bitten by a sand flea. I then tell them that I am not going to try to make them believe that I care about that Bushman or his little flea bite, but I do want them to know I care more about his flea bite than I care about their company policy.

Reasons #'s 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 why I had NO desire to ever work fraud..... I'd take a good blood splattered homicide any time!:angelsad2:

Reasons #'s 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 why I had NO desire to ever work fraud..... I'd take a good blood splattered homicide any time!:angelsad2:

I'll go with the white collar crime - it's neater. I'd rather catalog and decypher a pile a bank records than have to serve a search warrant at a homicide or a bloody rape/assault.

I only have limited experience as a detective, but I've worked mortgage fraud and sex assaults. I'll take the mortgage fraud every time. I like putting together all the puzzle pieces.

I'll go with the white collar crime - it's neater. I'd rather catalog and decypher a pile a bank records than have to serve a search warrant at a homicide or a bloody rape/assault.

I only have limited experience as a detective, but I've worked mortgage fraud and sex assaults. I'll take the mortgage fraud every time. I like putting together all the puzzle pieces.

That's the cool thing about police work, just about everyone can find their own niche.:cheers:

Since the primary motive for arson is fraud, I dealt with bank personnel almost on a weekly basis when working in the field. I can't think of an instance where a bank officer was uncooperative when I went to them for mortgage, title and other pertinent Info. on a suspicious fire loss. Usually after showing them my credentials, most without hesitating would go pull the file in question, pass it to me then quite often go about their business while I jotted down notes... Sometimes while sipping a cup of coffee which had been so graciously offered and accepted. :biggrin5:
If the findings in an investigation had developed into a court case I would subpoena the bank's records and usually one of the officers of the bank holding the mortgage or title to the structure or vehicle.

I have had several dealings with banks as a fed. Some are nice, some are not. I have learned a few things though:

1) You need to know as LEO what you are legally allowed to get without a subpoena.

2) Always contact the Security Department/Manager for anything. They seem to be able to get done what seems impossible and genuinely want to help the police. They have always helped me and let me get as much info as possible without any doucments or subpoenas. Sometimes you just need to ask things in the right phrase.

3) When you can't get security and have to deal with the bank manager, and asking for info you have a legal right to get, and they play the "you need a subpoena" game or my favorite phone relay (and won't tell you who you are talking to), suggest they get you the legal department on the phone and let you speak with them. If they refuse, whip out the cell and call information, get a number for the main office and get it from them. I have had managers tell me they can't tell me what I want without a subpoena after "phone relay" while I call their legal department who calls them on the other line and tells them to cooperate.

4) If you are sure you have a legal right, really need it, and they refuse, give them a choice, cooperate or get arrested for OGA. I had one manager refuse to allow me to review an external camera footage needed immediatley. The manager was a jerk and making a scene. It was not funny when the manager in the suit was crying in handcuffs and being walked out of the bank and taken to Federal Plaza. The bank president and security manager were calling and begging us to not charge thier branch manager. The U.S. Attorney's Office backed our decision and all was going ahead until the bank president had the security manager deliver the video, the branch manager apologize and then demoted him to a loan specialist at the same branch in front of us. Needless to say we have never had a problem since then.

And for the record, Bank of America is the worst I have dealt with. One branch sent us a bill for the 45 minutes of time the manager spent with us detailing the crime he called us about and wanted investigated. Take a bail out, and then charge teh government for you time to do a favor for you and investigate you being a victim.

I had one manager refuse to allow me to review an external camera footage needed immediatley. The manager was a jerk and making a scene. It was not funny when the manager in the suit was crying in handcuffs and being walked out of the bank and taken to Federal Plaza. The bank president and security manager were calling and begging us to not charge thier branch manager. The U.S. Attorney's Office backed our decision and all was going ahead until the bank president had the security manager deliver the video, the branch manager apologize and then demoted him to a loan specialist at the same branch in front of us. Needless to say we have never had a problem since then.


Bwahahahahahahahhaa :biggrin5:

...I'd take a good blood splattered homicide any time!:angelsad2:

You trying to bait an Old Crime Scene guy? :nonod:

From every "Expert" I ever heard from, "splatter" is nono terminology... and apparently a courtroom faux pas (sp?). It was drummed to us that it is "spatter". :smilielol5:

You trying to bait an Old Crime Scene guy? :nonod:

From every "Expert" I ever heard from, "splatter" is nono terminology... and apparently a courtroom faux pas (sp?). It was drummed to us that it is "spatter". :smilielol5:

There was a moron Lt. that worked in our S.O. that was supposedly a blood spatter expert. I have no idea why people thought he was, but he testified in courts all over. In one case, he testified that a guy who was hit 20+ times in the head with a hammer did it himself and it was a suicide. He based that on the blood pattern........:confused5:

He was at a hospital where I was interviewing a really beautiful young rape victim. The ******* saw her and pulled me aside. He told me that he could lift fingerprints off her body. I asked him how and he said using regular fingerprint graphite.:skep: What was scary was he wasn't joking, he really thought I would buy that bull**** and he could use that on the victim.

I told him to get away from me and he got near the victim I would bodily throw his *** out the door. He knew I was serious also, he left the building immediately.

...He was at a hospital where I was interviewing a really beautiful young rape victim. The ******* saw her and pulled me aside. He told me that he could lift fingerprints off her body. I asked him how and he said using regular fingerprint graphite.:skep: What was scary was he wasn't joking, he really thought I would buy that bull**** and he could use that on the victim.

....

We used to do try to do that on deceased bodies and actually did it on ourselves in Training. I'll leave the details out, but it involved using glue, and it was sometimes successful.

On a live body, the more successful involved time sensitivity.

We used to do try to do that on deceased bodies and actually did it on ourselves in Training. I'll leave the details out, but it involved using glue, and it was sometimes successful.

On a live body, the more successful involved time sensitivity.

I'm pretty skeptical that it can be done using only graphite powder. With the body pores and hair, I have trouble with the way he wanted to do it. But anyway, this was in the mid 80's and I know why this prick wanted to try. The S.O. LE side around here was never the least bit helpful before.:rolleyes5: Our criminalistic guys were pretty much on top of any new concepts and methods and I think I would have heard if it were possible back then.

This little girl had been through enough trauma, she didn't need his nasty *** touching and ogling her.

I am under the impression that pringts CAN be pulled from bodies these days.

I am under the impression that pringts CAN be pulled from bodies these days.

Might be, but it couldn't then.

I've taken prints from people's fingers before...

I've taken prints from people's fingers before...

Hang on, I think I can get your print off of the Member pics thread...

No, never mind that's your lip print which, last I heard, there was a new database of them being compiled.:lol:

Hang on, I think I can get your print off of the Member pics thread...



Hummmm, they looked strangely similar to tree rodent's......:skep:

In 1996 I watched a county cop pull a full handprint off a rape victims hand forearm using graphite powder and two other supplies readily in the field. The print quality was poor but there was enough for a match. It can be done, but there are a lot of variables.

Might be, but it couldn't then.

I don't doubt it. Hell, Watson and Crick were probably still in elementary school back then. :D




(They are widely attributed to the discovery of DNA, which can be contested. They did describe the structure for the first time, though.)

In 1996 I watched a county cop pull a full handprint off a rape victims hand forearm using graphite powder and two other supplies readily in the field. The print quality was poor but there was enough for a match. It can be done, but there are a lot of variables.

Do you know what those supplies were? It shouldn't be a huge secret. How to lift prints hardly compromises anything. Graphite powder alone should just go into the contours of the victim's skin.

I don't doubt it. Hell, Watson and Crick were probably still in elementary school back then. :D


http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll268/jimbellah/funny-dog-pictures-old-smile.jpg

Do you know what those supplies were? It shouldn't be a huge secret. How to lift prints hardly compromises anything. Graphite powder alone should just go into the contours of the victim's skin.


During the late 50's through the 80's we used graphite powder and the iodine fuming method for lifting prints. The technique has come a long way since then and I've read where in a Lab they lifted the prints off a shell casing after the bullet had been fired. The FBI and most investigative agencies are now using magnetic and flourescent powders and use super glue when fuming instead of iodine crystals.

The FBI and most investigative agencies are now using magnetic and flourescent powders and use super glue when fuming instead of iodine crystals.

Yeah, our guys were using super glue and a lot of new stuff before I left. I'm way behind on the technology. I was referring to a time when I know it couldn't be done though.

Yeah, our guys were using super glue and a lot of new stuff before I left. I'm way behind on the technology. I was referring to a time when I know it couldn't be done though.

Back when I was an investigator with the state forest service we were not only responsible for working arson but also investigating and prosecuting any crime committed against the Service. Everyone was fingerprint happy and I've had rangers to call in the middle of the night telling me they just had a break-in of one of their buildings or towers or a fuel theft and wanted me come immediately to check for prints; that they had one of their men protecting the scene and it couldn't wait. Rather than have them complain to the central office in Macon, I would sometimes drive 50-100 miles get there at daybreak then dust for prints around a door, padlock or whatever knowing but not telling the ranger that anything but 2 or 3 perfect prints were worthless. Of the hundreds of cases I've worked while with the forest service and comptroller's office, fingerprints played no part in a conviction.
We worked our butts off and to top it off got a directive one day from the commissioner stating that he wanted every employee fingerprinted. He probably got the bright idea from his brother who was Cartha "Deke", DeLoach white house liaison and director of the FBI at the time.
It sometimes took an hour or more to fingerprint an employee, as most were reluctant at that time when 2 full card printing of state personnel was just coming in. Some would stiffen up and refuse to relax making it almost impossible to roll out prints. One guy refused to be printed and his ranger fired him on the spot. Back then there was no merit system and when an employee was fired he or she had no recourse but to pack up their bags and leave.

During the late 50's through the 80's we used graphite powder and the iodine fuming method for lifting prints. The technique has come a long way since then and I've read where in a Lab they lifted the prints off a shell casing after the bullet had been fired. The FBI and most investigative agencies are now using magnetic and flourescent powders and use super glue when fuming instead of iodine crystals.

They had to come up with something other than iodine, since there were so many people with iodine allergies, they were falling out in Training.

It was the dang Japanese that discovered the use of crazy glue, back when they were shipping Datsun B210's over. :lol:

Did you ever use crazy glue on a pipe cleaner? It was good for a quick "freeze" of a latent on a difficult surface.

You were probably around back when Silver plates were used.

Here's a quickie search result I found for you guys re:fingerprinting skin:

ScienceDirect - Journal of the Forensic Science Society : The Detection and Persistence of Latent Fingerprints on Human Skin: An Assessment of the Iodine-Silver Plate Method (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JJ5-4SD2M40-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1045872484&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1ffce2ad6ab652da230e21fda2d2af32)


Copyright © 1978 Forensic Science Society Published by Elsevier B.V.

The Detection and Persistence of Latent Fingerprints on Human Skin: An Assessment of the Iodine-Silver Plate Method

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Carl Graya
Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds 2, England

Received 28 November 1977; accepted 5 December 1977. Available online 29 April 2008.

Several recent reports show encouraging results in the detection of latent fingerprints on human skin using the iodine-silver plate method. This study tested the method on fingerprints placed on 8 living volunteers, 4 warm cadavers and 5 refrigerated cadavers. Fingerprints placed on living volunteers were not detected after 15 minutes, but latent fingerprints persisted 18 hours and 24 hours on warm and cold cadavers respectively. This method will not be applicable to the living victims of assault, but is recommended for trial by investigating officers examining a body.


We used the Iodine/silver plate method in Training, but many people were allergic to it, and my Agency couldn't afford the silver plates, so they eventually discovered something else that worked.

Nowadays, every Agency has, (or should have) an Alternate Light Source (ALS) as cheap as they've become.

...We worked our butts off and to top it off got a directive one day from the commissioner stating that he wanted every employee fingerprinted....It sometimes took an hour or more to fingerprint an employee, as most were reluctant at that time when 2 full card printing of state personnel was just coming in. Some would stiffen up and refuse to relax making it almost impossible to roll out prints. One guy refused to be printed and his ranger fired him on the spot. Back then there was no merit system and when an employee was fired he or she had no recourse but to pack up their bags and leave.

Geez, that reminds me of another thing I don't miss.

Back in the mid 90's someone passed a law somewhere (Fed's?) that all daycare employees had to be fingerprinted. Of course, they all had to be fingerprinted at the last minute, and even though we'd made arrangements for them to all go thru the Detention Center to be printed (just like CCW permits, right?) some "elements of the Community" felt that they shouldn't have to go thru the Jail, who processed dozens of people a day and had plenty of practice doing it.

These day care centers had some sway with one individual Chief, who decided that our Unit had nothing better to do than to drive to the ends of the County with ink and a portable fingerprinting table and fingerprint these people.

That was the biggest pain in the ***. Most of these people couldn't fill out their own card with their particulars, name, race, weight, height, eye color, address, etc, so I ended up filling out most of the cards. Then when it came to actually inking them (which I'd had some experience with from my first Agency, but the other guys didn't) I can't count the number of Lee Press-on nails I tore off of fungus infected fingers. It took 3 days to get around to those centers in the sticks and one must have had 3 dozen workers.

Our Unit used fingerprinting ink for one thing, and that was to do Known tire impressions on butcher paper, but after that we were doing Dare Assignments to fingerprint kids and all kinds of BS, right up until that Chief died of natural causes, about a year later.