We recently talked with Sabrina Cillessen, a Program Manager with the Virginia Department of Forensic Science, about her thoughts on how the implementation of an electronic latent case management system (e-LCMS) improved efficiency and consistency. Sabrina has worked with the Department since 2011 as Program Manager for technical and quality aspects of latent prints, firearms, and computer forensics. She was previously at the Arizona Department of Public Safety as a criminalist in the latent print department and is a latent print expert.

What was your documentation process before you implemented an electronic latent case management system (e-LCMS)?

Case notes were hand written and digital images were printed for analysis and comparison.

Were there problems with doing things that way?

In switching to e-LCMS, we were looking for improved efficiency and consistency while increasing the amount of documentation related to the basis for the conclusion in the case notes.

What were the main factors in choosing to implement an e-LCMS?

The Department chose to implement electronic note taking to create more consistent case file documentation and provide more robust documentation of comparison conclusions.

How did your process change, and what are the benefits of the new process? Were there any unanticipated benefits?

Our workflow changed drastically because we went from performing comparisons using printed photographs to viewing the images on screen and marking characteristics used to reach a conclusion for every print. The benefit of this approach is that it enables someone reviewing the case file to clearly see the basis for the examiner’s conclusion. Implementing e-LCMS with the Star Network allows examiners in different locations to view images simultaneously and more readily consult on conclusions. Verifications can also be done in different locations without having to transport paperwork across the state.

Which factors are the most critical to the needs of your agency?

Quality and timely result reporting.

Does having an e-LCMS like Mideo LatentWorks save time?

The time savings is associated with the level of documentation we are able to create using Mideo Latent Works. The level of detail associated with the conclusions would take significantly more time if it were completed using traditional means.

How have evolving documentation requirements of latent print evidence affected your approach? How did an e-LCMS help?

The ability to efficiently create documentation demonstrating the basis for the conclusion is essential for the latent print community. The workflow possible with e-LCMS makes the demand for increased documentation easier. We require a side-by-side comparison for every identification. The tools available in Mideo make this easier than traditional charting methods. We would not be able to create the same level of documentation in the same amount of time without Mideo.

How do you see documentation evolving within the next few years?

The field is moving towards the marking of characteristics used to determine the value of the latent and the weight an examiner puts on the specific characteristics during the comparison step. At some point, it will no longer be acceptable to render an opinion without documentation visually demonstrating the basis for the conclusions. The use of statistics in the latent print community is also underway, and the e-LCMS workflow will enable a streamlined implementation of the data into the case file.

How does an e-LCMS benefit your latent print department from an accreditation/re-accreditation stand point?

We are able to more efficiently meet our accreditation criteria utilizing the e-LCMS. We were meeting the criteria prior to the implementation of the electronic workflow, but with the e-LCMS, we are able to increase the documentation without sacrificing time and resources.

Are there other advantages to a software-based system like Mideo LatentWorks?

It is much easier to do verifications and consultations with examiners in multiple locations. The examiners in all four of our labs have access to the information, which allows them to remotely verify images and consult with their colleagues.

LatentWorks also has a created workflow, but you can modify it to suit your needs. My analogy is that, previously, you had to build your house; now the house is built, and you just have to move a few walls.

How is customer service from Mideo?

They are always very responsive and do what they can to help.

To learn more about how an e-LCMS can benefit your organization, read about LatentWorks here.

Marcus Montooth is a Forensic Scientist and Latent Print Unit Supervisor with the Indiana State Police Laboratory in Evansville.   He has been an ASCLD assessor since 2012, and teaches Intro to Forensic Science as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Evansville. Mr. Montooth earned a BS in biology from the University of Evansville in 2001, and joined the State police in 2003 as a latent print examiner. In 2015 he became technical supervisor for the unit of 11 examiners.

In 2011, The Indiana State Police Laboratory began using Mideo’s LatentWorks e-Latent Case Management Software, and Mr. Montooth has been central to its set up, employee training, and use.

We recently talked with him about lab accreditation and the impact having a software system rather than paper-based system has.

From an assessor’s view, what are the keys to getting accredited for forensic labs?

As a certified technical assessor, I would say that the biggest part of accreditation is documentation. Here in Indiana, we’re accredited to ISO lab standards – but there are supplemental standards that every accrediting body has, in addition to our own internal criteria and test methods. All of these different levels of requirements have to be met. Every one of those requirements is not just that you have to do it, but that you have to document how you do it. Or that you’ve done it.

How often do crime labs have to be accredited, or reaccredited?

Once a year. And depending on the size of lab, it can take anywhere between 3 and 5 days.

How would you compare the lab accreditation process of a paper-based documentation system to a software system?

The advantage to having a software system is huge. We look for uniformity of information and processes. Are you using the right equipment? Are you using the right chemicals? Are your crime scene and other images secure and properly taken care of? With a software system like LatentWorks, for example, images are controlled once they are entered. This tells me they (the labs) are doing something to a level that they should be. The images going in are preserved, and while this is not required, by having them in this server-based system, I know, as an assessor, that their images are being taken care.

What do you see as the biggest advantages to a software system?

We get everything in one place – that is nice. We have our notes, all of our crime photo images, we scan in requests for lab exams and any other paper that is sent to us. While it is not an official record, for all the examiners – everything except the written report is in there.

When our labs were completely paper based – in Microsoft word – there were huge differences between people’s notes – and even small wording changes can have big meaning changes. Now, people have required information within the notes section – but there is some latitude – and a free hand section in all field sets. We saw such a good value that we have done the same thing with examiners’ reports. As an example, consider the difference between ”no latent prints were found” and “no latent prints were developed.“

Has the increased fingerprint identification documentation improved court outcomes?

Without a doubt, the added documentation makes cases more complete. We were accredited under ASCLD but switched to a stricter standard in part because of court – fingerprint analysis testimony being thrown out because of documentation, when they couldn’t tell what the original examiner was looking at to make his determination.

In our case, we are now significantly more prepared for court before we even get a subpoena. Cases are not getting thrown out of court for lack of documentation. With this system, every examiner can see what information was used to make a fingerprint identification.

We also set fields up to mirror our test methods, which take into account all the requirements. We can set them up with defaults – so instead of having to write notes, they are pre-filled out for us on each image, so we can’t miss it. It makes it incredibly easy for us – all of our examiners do it the same way, and if anything changes, we go in and reset the field sets, which are what you set up to input the information on the different images.

We are probably higher on the documentation than a lot of agencies – but others are catching up to us as accrediting bodies are beginning to require it.

And what they see is not only more information, but more relevant information?

Yes. Basically, in our new environment, gone are a lot of details about what I did, and they are replaced with more important data on how I did it. As an example, say we have one (fingerprint) lift and one person to compare to. In our old system, my notes would say “one lift, one latent evaluation found compared to the card bearing the suspect’s name, compared to left index.” I’d scan the lift in, take a picture of packaging, document what’s on the package, write what’s noted on the lift by the investigator, pull the latent print, fill out an analysis of it going through levels of details – then we move on to the comparison, which is in a different program.

Now, I scan in the card, do a complete comparison chart of the two and document that, and then the comparison that follows.   Gone from this is what I did, replaced by how I did it.

In our new system, it’s all in one place. It’s pretty easy – maybe not the only way to do it, but it is simpler.

Does having an e-Latent Case Software system save time?

That’s a little bit of a “yes and no” question. While it takes more time than it used, that’s because we have added so much documentation, so it is not the software. It’s hard for me to imagine what would have happened if we had increased our level of documentation and did not have this system. We have four regional forensic labs across the state – and with Latent Works we are all signed into the same server. We can review each other’s work from 300 miles away.

As a supervisor, I can honestly say the quality of the work has gone up because of the documentation.

Latent fingerprint analysis has grown into an intricate science. As the process becomes more complex, the need for accurate documentation becomes more critical. Today’s examiners can expect to be required to share the process and the conclusions of their work during many stages of the legal process.

All of this argues that thorough latent fingerprint documentation is no longer optional, rather, it needs to become a standard practice.  Departments can decide how to generate that documentation, but an electronic latent case management system (e-LCMS) like LatentWorks has a strong advantage for building-in the necessary completeness and efficiency.

There Will Be Questions

The days of undocumented analysis being accepted as fact in the legal system are over. Any form of scientific analysis demands that you show evidence for the conclusion.

Today’s latent examiners must be able to justify their findings with complete and accurate documentation. They can expect both questions and challenges.

The automated form of documentation provided in LatentWorks allows examiners to answer questions with science and supported data. It is an easier and more accurate way of reporting findings. Examiners can show exactly what they saw, what they did, and what they concluded.

Demand for Accuracy

A documentation system improves accuracy, fosters consistency, and provides examiners with tools to do a more thorough job than ever before. LatentWorks allows examiners to show exactly how they reached their conclusions, with a depth of detail that makes clear their expertise.

“When I started in this industry 25 years ago…frequently there was no documentation of analysis, no case notes. Back then, they didn’t ask questions. That is so far from the way it goes today, it’s hard to fathom,” said Maria Ruggiero, supervising forensic ID specialist with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and user of Mideo LatentWorks.

Expectation for “First Day” Recall 

While a case may take years to get to court, the expectation is for expert witnesses to offer complete and accurate recall as if the examination just happened.

With an electronic documentation system, examiners record and save their notes in real time. When they are called to testify in a case that related to evidence that was completed months – if not years – ago, they have the detailed findings and full explanation of how the conclusion was reached right there in the system.

With electronic documentation, prep time is shortened and it is easier for the examiner to be a more accurate expert witness.

Another benefit of a documentation system is the ability to create a court display of evidence and the examination process. In the past, without electronic notes and documentation, examiners would have to do a whole new examination to prepare for court.

This is even more challenging if there is a change in personnel. With an electronic system, all the details used to ID a fingerprint are documented in the notes for everyone to reference.

Required for Accreditation

Documentation is one of the largest aspects of accreditation. Certified technical assessors are looking for case notes that show uniformity of information and processes. Electronic documentation systems create the consistency and detail that is needed.

Every agency has its own process for examination. With an electronic system, the checks that each examiner needs to make during the process are accounted for in the system. They don’t need to remember, they just need to follow the flow set up in the system.

Assessors can access the same system, making it easy for them to see and verify the required level of consistency.

Transparency in the Process   

Unlike previous documentation requirements which focused on what was done by the examiner, it’s now critical to document how the examiner performed the analysis.

Anyone should be able to come behind the examiner and determine what was done and what led to the conclusion. Documentation covers this need. LatentWorks makes it easy for examiners to make sure all required steps are completed and recorded.

Handwritten notes are time-consuming and inherently less accurate. With a documentation system, examiners type notes directly into the program. They record both their observations and reasoning as well as the process that was used.

The automated form of documentation provided in LatentWorks, allows examiners and agencies to answer questions with science and supported data. It is an easier and more accurate way of doing latent fingerprint print analysis.

To learn more about the Electronic Latent Case Management System (e-LCMS) discussed, read about LatentWorks.

Have a story to share?

We are collecting stories for an upcoming blog post about the pitfalls of poor documentation in court. Do you have any anecdotes you can share, either that happened to you or someone you know? The stories will be anonymous, unless you are comfortable naming names. Just send an email to [email protected]

There is little question that today’s latent print community faces unprecedented challenges. From increased calls for changing existing processes and procedures (while maintaining existing case loads) to simultaneously meeting the evolving requirements to greatly improve documentation, latent print departments are under extreme pressure— pressure that lies on top of the ongoing realities of tight budgets and the need to recruit and retain superior talent.

At the same time, one of the greatest issues facing our industry is the heightened scrutiny—from multiple and various parties — of latent print actions and practices. More than ever before, there is need for meeting transparency concerns, while improving efficiency, accuracy, and consistency in the casework performed by latent examiners.

As part of any department’s overall strategy, an Electronic Latent Case Management System (e-LCMS) can play a vital role in addressing these issues.

Efficiency

With staff increasingly required to do more with less, the ability to access information quickly and efficiently — without digging through stacks of paper or cabinets full of folders — becomes paramount. Consider this: with an e-LCMS, all case information (images, case notes, worksheets, reports) is stored on a central server and easily accessed from any computer on the network.

In addition to improving accessibility, an e-LCMS streamlines workflow and moves the office toward the greater efficiencies of a paperless process. No more having to locate misplaced file folders or worry about incomplete data. Further, an e-LCMS includes a secure image/photo management system (with full audit trail), eliminating the need to copy CDs or DVDs. All information relevant to a case can be immediately retrieved by an examiner for case review, onscreen comparison, and verification.

Simplicity

A well-designed e-LCMS puts the tools to simplify increasingly complex and evolving documentation requirements in the hands of those who need it. Using intuitive data fields, the e-LCMS walks an examiner step-by-step through the detailed documentation process (evidence processing, latent analysis, AFIS, comparison, verification). At the same time, the e-LCMS matches SWGFAST (Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis) current best practice recommendations for the latent print community.

Equally important, a good e-LCMS can be adapted as new requirements and recommendations (i.e., Office of Scientific Area Committees — Friction Ridge Subcommittee) are released.

Consistency

It’s tough to argue with the notion that “the best defense is a good offense.” Being confident that processes, case notes, and all related case documentation are consistent and easily accessible provides a valuable platform for success and supports transparency. In addition, an e-LCMS encourages uniformity of information by allowing agency-specific terminology to be built into all processes, which eliminates the variations of style and terminology in case notes that are typical from examiner to examiner. Accuracy and consistency are also enhanced by consistent formatting of all output.

Accessibility

Information is only as good as the ability to access it easily and quickly. An e-LCMS provides this ability both internally and externally, by authorizing access to specific case information for users outside the latent department. Additionally, a well-designed e-LCMS provides remote access to parties involved in the case, such as other agencies or the offices of the district attorney.

Accreditation

Accreditation is an important reality, and increasingly valuable in this era of unprecedented public scrutiny. By its nature, an e-LCMS supports objectives for either receiving or maintaining ISO/IEC 17025 or 17020 accreditation — a significant attribute considering latent prints analysis stands as the most complicated analytical process found in the forensic environment.

Assuming a strong design, an e-LCMS provides the infrastructure to standardize all case interactions, making it easy to determine how the process is performing at any point, and automatically tracking all case activity so that an audit trail exists for updates and/or changes. Longer term, an e-LCMS provides a dynamic platform that adapts as requirements continue to evolve.

While the challenges that lie ahead of the law enforcement world are momentous, ours is an industry that faces things head on. E-LCMS provides important efficiencies and stellar accuracy, and the systems help support the important work to be done nationwide.

To learn more about how an e-LCMS can benefit your organization, read about LatentWorks.

Visual or graphic representations of the latent print analysis process creates powerful evidence, making it an integral component to present a complete case. Seeing is believing, and this is certainly true for all the people involved in the court process.

Extending the Traditional Latent Print Examination Process

As with most forensic science comparative analyses, a latent print analysis starts with the unknown. Target areas are marked and observations are annotated. This analysis at the beginning of the process helps you to compare your unknown print to a set of known.

Traditional processes stopped there. Written documentation was submitted and supplemented by verbal testimony of the process.

This isn’t enough for today’s courtroom. Visual documentation is needed for credibility. Fortunately, with electronic analysis tools, you can can show what was examined, what was observed, and visually document the process.

Visualizing Latent Print Analysis

Graphic annotations provide more extensive insight for prosecutors. Visuals help them to fully understand the evidence examination and prepare for the case.

To provide the strongest analysis, latent print examiners need to create images related to the examination. These images should include graphic annotations with visual cues, color mark-ups, and text.

Options go well beyond static image documentation. For example, examiners can put both the unknown and the known print on the same computer screen and make annotations to reflect the comparison and create multi-image compilations of the process.

On-screen graphic annotations can show the step-by-step analysis and comparison process. A feature like Mideo LatentWorks Grouping can be used to create moving or animated presentations or even videos of the forensic procedure.

These modern versions of classic court displays can provide a visual representation of the initial analysis as well as any subsequent analysis and comparisons. This furnishes the complete process in a graphic format making the entire process clear and transparent for the courts and the defense.

Making a Strong Case

It is very important to tie the graphic annotations with thorough written documentation in worksheets to complete the presentation. Visual documentation can then be presented to the prosecutor and defense along with written documentation, making a more complete case.

Advanced full electronic documentation, such as Mideo LatentWorks, supported by a visual representation of the analysis and conclusions of a forensic expert, is the most powerful case presentation technique.

In fact, anecdotal evidence suggests that strong written documentation coupled with extensive graphical presentation makes a solid case that can be less likely to go to court. Visuals give the defense less room to create doubt in the courtroom.

When cases do head to trial, courtrooms increasingly are equipped for visual evidence. Display screens and other technology that allow visual evidence to be effectively shared in the courtroom are becoming more common.

Visual documentation plays an important role at every stage of a case. It is important for the examiner, the prosecutor, the defense, and court. Ensure that your latent print examinations make the strongest case possible by coupling full electronic documentation with visual representations of the analysis and conclusions.

LatentWorks e-Latent Case Management Software (e-LCMS) includes tools for on-screen graphic annotations as well as a complete software platform designed to bring a systematic workflow-based approach to the documentation of the entire latent examination process.

Learn more about LatentWorks here.

Latent print examiners have the final say on the evaluation of latent print evidence in most cases. If the examiner determines an exclusion, no one will revisit the evidence. Even in jurisdictions with some level of auditing, the vast majority of cases never get a technical review on suitability.

Knowing how to search smartly and when to exclude is perhaps one of the most important roles of the latent fingerprint examiner. Examiners must work efficiently and effectively to make sure that all searches yield the highest quality results.

Leanne Gray is a Certified Latent Print Examiner (CLPE) and Certified Foot Wear Examiner (CFWE). She recently retired from a 30-year career that included roles at a state level crime lab, teaching and consulting. She firmly believes that the right determination comes from a thoughtful, systematic process that flows through these nine steps:

1. Complete and thorough analysis of the latent print
2. Complete and thorough analysis of the standard or elimination print
3. Identify a target of 2-5 characteristics in the print
4. Search for the target in the known standards
5. Conduct a second search with the same target
6. Pick the second target as far from the first target as possible
7. Search for the target in the known standards
8. Conduct a second search with the same target
9. Document findings

While these steps are presented in succession, Gray suggests they need to be handled more like a flow chart. Moving from one step to the next should only happen after an important self-check.

As the examiner moves from one step to the next, it is critical that they ask: Have I been focused and on task throughout this step? Yes or no? If there are any doubts or distractions the examiner needs to repeat the previous step. If the answer is yes, he or she is good to proceed.

It’s important to realize that you won’t know if you have everything you need until you identify a print. Gray notes.

She vividly remembers one homicide case that concluded with taking about 46 pages of standards from an individual because of the location of the print she needed to examine. The examination could not finish without sufficient and complete material to work with.

“Eliminating a print requires not only a thorough search but also concluding that the possible location of the latent would be contained within the standards that you have,” Gray says. “In other words, an examiner must have a high degree of confidence in the latent location possibilities to determine that all of those possible locations are contained within the inked standards with a high level of quality and clarity to allow for an elimination.”

After a thorough examination of the print and the standards, looking for ridge flow, focal points, cores, and deltas, as well as rotating the latent print to look from different points of view, examiners must find a good target for the next step of the analysis.

Since a complete print standard from the last portion of a finger can have up to 225 individual characteristics, an accurate exam cannot be done based on the totality. It is simply too much detail to process in the brain. Examiners need to focus on a subset of the entire print, and that’s the role of selecting a target area.

“A good target is something your eye hones in on, something that jumps outs when looking at the print,” Gray says. Pick two to five components – dots, bifurcations, ending ridges – in close proximity to create a target area for the examination.

The important thing is to narrow to something small that can be searched efficiently. Gray believes that these smaller-scale searches are key to efficiently and effectively serving the case. Compare the latent print target to the standard. If there is any question search again.

“A single search through does not usually mean you can eliminate,” Gray says.

You may decide you need more complete standards. You may need to revisit one or more steps.

But the biggest question involves a careful self-audit. Have I stayed alert and focused through my whole search? Is my head in the game?

“The longer you have been doing the job the more you are aware of any distractions. Don’t gloss over them,” Gray says.

The best examiners will keep a case open and look again when the distraction, which can be anything from a phone call to a major life event, is eliminated from the process. Only when a systematic, focused exam is completed can you safely make an elimination determination.

“Part of the job is knowing that you can’t finish until you are done. You are the last line so you need to do each examination to the best of your ability,” Gray cautions. “If you eliminate, it is done, and rarely will anyone look again after you.”

She recommends that no case be considered complete until the examiner can say with confidence that the work was done with clear standards and that the searches were conducted without distraction.

The nine smart search steps need to be coupled with excellent documentation. The examiner’s word on the witness stand is no longer good enough. The proof is in the documentation.

Latent examination is nothing without documentation. A computerized system like LatentWorks allows for complete, fine-tuned documentation for an agency.

The system makes it easy to document latent print examination work in real time. The documentation is then accessible and transparent to everyone.

“I have taught many courses on documentation. The whole job is only meaningful if you can document and articulate what you have done,” Gray notes. “The proof is in the documentation.”­­­­­

LatentWorks provides a software platform designed to bring a systematic workflow-based approach to the documentation of the latent examination process.  LatentWorks also assures that there is consistency in terminology across all documentation prepared by all the individuals within each latent unit. Learn more about LatentWorks.

See other Mideo latent-related blog posts here.

When it comes to latent fingerprint documentation, you may think that more is always better. But experience has shown that is not the case. A court case can be jeopardized by too little or too much documentation. Your agency needs a process that meets the needs of the customers you serve.

“There has to be a purposeful discussion about documentation where the result, the end customer of the worksheets and reports, the effect on the workflow, and the purpose for all documentation are all considered,” notes Steve Scarborough, a subject matter expert and trainer for Mideo who has worked on the documentation processes for multiple agencies.

Scarborough worked in local law enforcement as well as the FBI during a career that spanned more than 30 years. He has written articles and given presentations on best practices in print documentation. His observation is that many agencies throughout the country either under document or over document their processes.

The Risks of Under-Documenting and Over-Documenting

Under-documenting typically occurs within agencies that have not changed their approach from when they started their documentation processes. Twenty years ago, not much was documented. Most of the details were recorded in the minds of the experts.

“When they went into court, they would relay what they did from memory,” Scarborough says. “Sometimes there were handwritten notes as well, but not much.”

Today there is a general understanding that documentation is important. Agencies are at many different levels of addressing this need and there is a wide range of approaches to documentation.

Over-documentation happens as well. Scarborough finds this can be a common outcome when agencies overcompensate due to media reports of anticipated or actual attacks on evidence by defense attorneys and by critics of forensics science. The danger is in getting bogged down and making the entire documentation process ineffective.

“If you are having difficulty keeping up with the backlog, you need to look at documentation to determine if it is slowing down the process,” Scarborough advises.

Not every question is solved with documentation. A qualified examiner should be able to anticipate the core questions about evidence that will satisfy defense questioning.

“A number of years ago at my agency we would take a picture of the packaging to prove and reinforce the statement made in the notes by the examiner. Then they temporally took a picture of the person taking the picture to show the inefficiency and frankly the ridiculousness of going too far in documentation,” Scarborough recalls.

Your Documentation Goal: Complete, Inclusive, and Efficient

The best documentation system for your agency will be complete and inclusive without bogging down the system. The right mindset is to have a documentation process that answers these questions:

• Who is our end customer and what do they need?
• What workflow allows us to provide the needed documentation?
• What is the purpose of each item we document?

Scarborough suggests that SOPs be used to handle unusual situations or needs. The standard process should be as simple as possible to meet typical requirements.

Requirements of documentation should be dictated by the needs of the local agency. Standards required by accreditation should be adapted based on local, not necessarily national, requirements and SOPs.

Find Your Best Practice

Best practices for latent fingerprint documentation should include the information necessary to present a legal case without retarding the workflow process. Requirements most often come from prosecutor’s office. Agencies should also look to the recommendations of governing forensic organizations for guidance.

Documentation is a cornerstone in the effort to assemble a case. The goal is to provide all the necessary information for the expert to be able to recreate the examination and relay that process in the courtroom.

Your process most cover these categories:

• General evidence documentation
• Basic analysis documentation
• Detailed comparison documentation

Moving from a paper-based to an electronic documentation system like LatentWorks can streamline the process. Scarborough has helped agencies take this step, and finds that some things aren’t needed and some can be addressed in a different way.

“An agency may try to get in all information that was initially packed on paper worksheets. Most find that they don’t really need all that information. They just had the room on those worksheets so it was included or put it on for the ‘what if’ situations that really never happen or happen very rarely,” Scarborough says.

Moving to an electronic documentation process can be a time to make the work as efficient as possible, while still building documentation that provides for a complete case.   While it may seem like a lot of effort is spent on the front end of the process, software like LatentWorks ensures that all elements of solid documentation are present and instantly available prior to court or case review.

LatentWorks provides a software platform designed to bring a systematic workflow-based approach to the documentation of the latent examination process.  LatentWorks also assures that there is consistency in terminology across all documentation prepared by all the individuals within each forensic unit.