NCJ Number
161913
Journal
Journal of Forensic Identification Volume: 46 Issue: 1 Dated: (January/February 1996) Pages: 19-31
Date Published
1996
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This article reports on the experimentation with and evaluation of the 3M Fingerprint Visualization Fuming Wand; its overall use, effectiveness, and safety were compared to the conventional cyanoacrylate (superglue) fuming method for the development of latent prints.
Abstract
Based on the findings, the author recommends that the superglue fuming wand not be purchased for widespread use by investigators in the field. He argues that if the superglue fuming wand were used by investigators in the field, the evidence would be poorly fumed, if not damaged altogether. Since the quality of wand-developed latent prints are inferior to conventionally superglue-fumed latent prints, subsequent laboratory enhancement of prints would also be diminished. Furthermore, since most field investigators are not trained in recognizing latent prints for their suitability for identification, it is doubtful that field investigators would take the necessary time to target and develop quality latent prints with the superglue fuming wand, nor would they take the necessary safety measures to prevent health hazards due to the lack of convenience. The only practical field use for the superglue fuming wands would be to fume target areas of large immovable objects for the purpose of developing any latent prints for subsequent dusting and lifting, or to photograph them in their natural size for laboratory comparison. Further, the continued expense for the replacement of the expendable accessories, coupled with the apparent potential for health hazards does not make the superglue fuming wand a viable product for prolific use. 9 figures and 5 references