Alexis Wafstet
July 12, 2008
CJ242 Forensics/Lizotte
Project 1/Forensic Discipline
Fingerprint Examination is probably the most trusted and efficient ways to identify an individual. No two people in the world, not even identical twins, have the same fingerprint pattern. Fingerprints have been used as a form of identification since ancient times. It is believed that Ancient Babylonians used fingerprints to sign contracts as long ago as 2000 BC. Additionally, fingerprinting was used as a means of identification in 9th century China as a means to authenticate debt records. Although modern uses of fingerprint identification were not established until the 19th century, there is significant evidence that show fingerprinting was used throughout history as a positive means of identification.
According to Locard’s theory, whenever a person enters a location they leave something behind and take something with them. Fingerprints are left by transferring skin oils or secretions from the eccrine glands that are present in friction ridge skin. A friction ridge is a raised part of the epidermis on the palm or fingers of the skin, sometimes called the dermal ridges. These ridges have characteristic patterns known as loops, arches and whorls. Every fingerprint has one of these pattern types or variations included in the ridge formation. Friction ridges on the hands and feet also have other distinctive characteristics that are known as points. The first of these points are called bifurcations, which are when a single ridge splits into two ridges. Ridge endings are another point, which is established simply when a ridge ends. Dots are spots in the ridge formation that are unique to each fingerprint. These characteristics in friction ridge formations are what a Latent Print Examiner uses to compare and identify each unique fingerprint.
Fingerprint identification is the science of comparing latent prints, or those impressions left behind, with those that are known. A known print is one that is recorded on a smooth surface, usually with ink transferred onto a card. Latent print identification is based on levels of details including ridge flow, ridge formations and ridge path deviation. This means that comparisons are based on patterns, endings, bifurcations, dots, pores, ridge formation, and other unique details. A Latent Print Examiner makes these positive identifications based on the procedure known as ACE-V, which is an acronym for Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification. This is done by analyzing the friction ridges and determining their proportions, relationship and value toward comparison. There must be significant attributes observed in order for the print to be used as evidence. Without enough information to compare, the examiner may not be able to determine a conclusive match. Once the first analysis is complete, a second qualified examiner must compare the evaluation. This is to further verify if they agree with the first analysis and confirm the findings of whether or not the friction ridge impression is a positive match. If a fingerprint is lifted and a positive identification is determined, there is no doubt that person was at that location.
Latent prints are recovered many different ways. The first and most recognized technique is dusting. An examiner uses soft brushes to apply a fine powder to a nonporous surface. The powder sticks to the secretions left by the friction ridges of the skin. From there, the print can be photographed for comparison or simply lifted off of the surface using adhesive tape and then placed on cards to be preserved as evidence for later comparison. Porous surfaces are more difficult to recover prints from, as sweat and other residues are absorbed into the material. One method of recovering prints in this case is by using magnetic powders. They contain iron filings and when used with their special wands, the powder can be spread over prints. This procedure does not always work. In this case, examiners use a chemical known as ninhydrine, which reacts to the chemicals in sweat. Once heated, prints will appear purple and glow when hit by various lights, therefore making the prints visible for comparison. When checking for possible fingerprints, an investigator can also use special lighting techniques to determine if a print is on a surface that is not visible to the naked eye. From there prints can be photographed and lifted for further analysis.
Fingerprint evidence has been used in criminal courts to convict criminals as far back as 1892 in Argentina. The FBI began keeping fingerprint records of criminals in the 1890’s. Today, computer databases, like AFIS keep the nation and the world connected with millions of unique fingerprint records to use for comparisons. They have been the evidence needed to determine criminals in famous cases including John Dillinger, James Earl Ray, not to mention various Nazi supporters. Fingerprints are also used as one means of identification for the deceased when other methods are not available. This can be accomplished by rolling ink onto the fingers of the postmortem and transferring them onto a card. In some cases, an examiner must put their own gloved hand inside of the skin of the deceased in order to recover a print.
This area of Forensic Science is extremely fascinating to me for several reasons. To begin with, I want to have a career as a Crime Scene Investigator and this discipline truly suits me. I am detail oriented, and I love to analyze and research things. Secondly, it is exciting to me that no two people have the same fingerprints. With that in mind, I would be able to find the bad guy, without much doubt involved. Juries also have more faith in this area of Forensic Science, as it is one of the oldest and most trusted forms of positive identification of an individual. This would establish satisfaction in my career and I would know that I am personally making positive contributions to the Criminal Justice System. With these things in mind, Fingerprint Examination is a positive choice for me therefore, studying this discipline fascinates and excites me.
Works Cited:
Cole, Simon A. “Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification”. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2001.
Platt, Richard. “Crime Scene: The Ultimate Guide to Forensic Science”. DK Publishing. New York, New York. 2003 Dorling Kindersley Limited.
“Fingerprint”. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint. Last Modified: June 29, 2008. Printed: June 30, 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Breach of Accountability: Miami River Cop Scandal
Alexis Wafstet
August 1, 2007
CJ151 Policing/Smith
By 1980, Miami was a booming city with one of the highest rates of drug traffic and murder in the nation, but the police had not hired a new recruit in five years. Within two years, 600 officers were hired to help combat the city’s issues, but in the rush to fill positions, background issues for some candidates were overlooked in order to fill the spot. In this case, positions were filled by previous gang members and other individuals with criminal backgrounds that should never have passed the investigation process, let alone, should have been allowed to serve on the force in any professional capacity. Many officers found that stealing from drug dealers was a victimless crime. They would skim off evidence to their own bank accounts, knowing drug dealers would not fight lesser charges for reduced amounts of evidence against them. They used this to their advantage and for the next few years, their crimes began to escalate in severity, and eventually included murder.
Many Miami officers were known to be involved in home invasion robberies of drug dealers and night club owners. They went there to find drugs and money knowing the victims would not call the police to investigate their losses. Richard Caride, a leader of one of these groups, was convicted in 1985 for one such incident. No drugs or money was recovered, but the nightclub owner and his girlfriend were murdered. In July of that same year, several instances led up to the prosecution of the “Miami River Cops”. There were numerous offenses including racketeering, narcotics violations, civil rights offenses, and tax offenses that blew up all centered around a large-scale narcotics operation involving nearly 100 police officers all acting in their official line of duty.
This example of this a breach of accountability became known as the “Miami River Cop Scandal”. Nearly 10% of the force was jailed, fired or reprimanded for their part in connection to the scandal. The first problem, later recognized by Miami-Dade Police Chief Witt was the force was “lacking good, basic education. We recognized that many of them lacked good, basic
communication skills. We recognized that few of them had any personal discipline. Our reference to them as time bombs was exactly that.” (Stuart). Due to the issues of the Miami scandal, the Justice Department commissioned a nationwide study which concluded that tougher recruitment standards and reinforcing values were the keys to stopping police corruption (Stuart).
In early July 1985, Officer Carballo and several other co-conspirators attempted to steal 5,000 pounds of marijuana. They believed the load was coming from the Florida Keys to be unloaded at the Tower Paint Store in Miami. What they didn’t know was the van they were attempting to rob had already been seized by legitimate law enforcement officials in Key Largo (Supreme Court). This incident began a series of events that made it possible to include racketeering to the officers’ list of official crimes. Racketeering is typically difficult to prove and prosecute. With the mounting pile of evidence against the officers working as a group, the charge was easier to prove than in most cases.
On July 12, 1985, Officer Carballo, Officer Coello and several others stole 1,000 kilos of cocaine from a boat docked at the Tamiami Marine Marina on the Miami River. In the incident, Coello badly beat a crewman on the boat. It was also later determined that Carballo had smuggled some cocaine for himself and sold 10 kilos for $220,000.00 (Supreme Court). The final incident, which broke the whole scandal wide open, was known as the “Jones Boat Yard Rip-off”. On July 28, 1985, Carballo, Coello, and approximately a dozen other officers raided the Mary C., a boat docked there and discovered 400 kilos of cocaine being loaded into a van by the drug smugglers. Coello and other officers pushed six smugglers off of the boat, and were observed by witnesses. Three men drowned and their bodies were discovered which led to the investigation of the department, thanks to the witness testimony. It was later discovered that the cocaine profits from this job were about $116,000.00 from the sale of the cocaine they had stolen.
During the investigation process in early 1987, Officer Dick Fiallo came forward as a witness against Carballo in a home invasion case. A group of officers working with Carballo conspired to kill Fiallo. They met up at a party at Fiallo’s house and cased the place. They later secured a pair of Mac 10 machine guns for the job (Kissell). After driving around all night and trying to decide the best way to assassinate Fiallo, the officers finally abandoned their plan. Dick Fiallo was not murdered and later testified in the home invasion case.
Carbello was sentenced to concurrent terms of 15 years imprisonment on each count, including cocaine charges, marijuana distribution, and conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. Osvaldo Coello was sentenced to 35 years in Federal Prision for his part in the Miami River Scandal. Pablo “Tatico” Martinez was arrested and convicted in 1989, and is currently serving his 24 year sentence. Arturo de la Vega received a 30 year sentence, and is currently out on parole. Rodolfo Arias turned state’s witness and testified against seven other officers. For his cooperation, he received a 10 year sentence, and served only 3 ½ years. From there he spent several years in the Witness Protection Program. There have been several other law enforcement officials still being convicted for their crimes involved with the Miami River Scandal. Jose Gonzales was never convicted in his breach of accountability in the 1980’s, but is being investigated for his participation in the assassination attempt on Fiallo.
Throughout history, there are a plethora of examples of power corrupting. Police officers are not immune to this phenomenon. There is barely a day that passes when you watch the news or read the paper, and there isn’t a story of police officers being investigated for corrupt activities somewhere in the United States. In Washington, the FBI tracks police corruption cases nationwide and have found that 59% of them are drug related. They also see a pattern in how good cops go bad (Stuart). When money and opportunity present itself, an officer may be tempted to use this to their advantage. When the news of these corrupt activities breaks, the officer, the force, and law enforcement everywhere is affected in the eyes of the public. It compromises the feelings of safety in the community and will take years to repair their image.
“The danger of police corruption, and this is that it may invert the formal goals of the organization and may lead to the use of organizational power to encourage and crime rather than to deter it.” (Sherman). The basic definition for corruption in policing is typically viewed as the misuse of authority by an officer acting officially to attain their own personal wants or needs. There are three distinct elements of police corruption that must be present in order to convict the officer of the breach of accountability. They are: 1) The misuse of authority, 2) The misuse of official capacity, 3) The misuse of personal attainment (Dantzker). These elements are all present in the Miami River Cop Scandal. Many years of their corruption went by before their crimes were discovered. It is estimated that each officer involved in the groups with Carbello and Coello made anywhere from $200,000.00 to $2 million each. It isn’t hard to understand how there could be temptation there. Police Officers are fallible people who can still make mistakes and poor decisions.
Works Cited:
Carballo, Petitioner v. United States of America/Coello, Petitioner v. United States of America, No. 90-1252, No. 90-7501. Supreme Court of the United States, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. October Term 1990
Carter, David L. (1986). Deviance and Police. Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co.
Duntzker, Mark L. (1995). Understanding Today’s Police. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kissell, Ted B. (April 6, 2000). “River of Sleaze”. Miami New Times. Miami, Florida.
Sherman, Lawrence W. (1978). Scandal and Reform. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Stuart, Charles C. “When Cops Go Bad”, Frontline #901. Original Airdate: October 16, 1990.
www.pbs.org. Copyright 1995-2006 WGBH Educational Foundation.
August 1, 2007
CJ151 Policing/Smith
By 1980, Miami was a booming city with one of the highest rates of drug traffic and murder in the nation, but the police had not hired a new recruit in five years. Within two years, 600 officers were hired to help combat the city’s issues, but in the rush to fill positions, background issues for some candidates were overlooked in order to fill the spot. In this case, positions were filled by previous gang members and other individuals with criminal backgrounds that should never have passed the investigation process, let alone, should have been allowed to serve on the force in any professional capacity. Many officers found that stealing from drug dealers was a victimless crime. They would skim off evidence to their own bank accounts, knowing drug dealers would not fight lesser charges for reduced amounts of evidence against them. They used this to their advantage and for the next few years, their crimes began to escalate in severity, and eventually included murder.
Many Miami officers were known to be involved in home invasion robberies of drug dealers and night club owners. They went there to find drugs and money knowing the victims would not call the police to investigate their losses. Richard Caride, a leader of one of these groups, was convicted in 1985 for one such incident. No drugs or money was recovered, but the nightclub owner and his girlfriend were murdered. In July of that same year, several instances led up to the prosecution of the “Miami River Cops”. There were numerous offenses including racketeering, narcotics violations, civil rights offenses, and tax offenses that blew up all centered around a large-scale narcotics operation involving nearly 100 police officers all acting in their official line of duty.
This example of this a breach of accountability became known as the “Miami River Cop Scandal”. Nearly 10% of the force was jailed, fired or reprimanded for their part in connection to the scandal. The first problem, later recognized by Miami-Dade Police Chief Witt was the force was “lacking good, basic education. We recognized that many of them lacked good, basic
communication skills. We recognized that few of them had any personal discipline. Our reference to them as time bombs was exactly that.” (Stuart). Due to the issues of the Miami scandal, the Justice Department commissioned a nationwide study which concluded that tougher recruitment standards and reinforcing values were the keys to stopping police corruption (Stuart).
In early July 1985, Officer Carballo and several other co-conspirators attempted to steal 5,000 pounds of marijuana. They believed the load was coming from the Florida Keys to be unloaded at the Tower Paint Store in Miami. What they didn’t know was the van they were attempting to rob had already been seized by legitimate law enforcement officials in Key Largo (Supreme Court). This incident began a series of events that made it possible to include racketeering to the officers’ list of official crimes. Racketeering is typically difficult to prove and prosecute. With the mounting pile of evidence against the officers working as a group, the charge was easier to prove than in most cases.
On July 12, 1985, Officer Carballo, Officer Coello and several others stole 1,000 kilos of cocaine from a boat docked at the Tamiami Marine Marina on the Miami River. In the incident, Coello badly beat a crewman on the boat. It was also later determined that Carballo had smuggled some cocaine for himself and sold 10 kilos for $220,000.00 (Supreme Court). The final incident, which broke the whole scandal wide open, was known as the “Jones Boat Yard Rip-off”. On July 28, 1985, Carballo, Coello, and approximately a dozen other officers raided the Mary C., a boat docked there and discovered 400 kilos of cocaine being loaded into a van by the drug smugglers. Coello and other officers pushed six smugglers off of the boat, and were observed by witnesses. Three men drowned and their bodies were discovered which led to the investigation of the department, thanks to the witness testimony. It was later discovered that the cocaine profits from this job were about $116,000.00 from the sale of the cocaine they had stolen.
During the investigation process in early 1987, Officer Dick Fiallo came forward as a witness against Carballo in a home invasion case. A group of officers working with Carballo conspired to kill Fiallo. They met up at a party at Fiallo’s house and cased the place. They later secured a pair of Mac 10 machine guns for the job (Kissell). After driving around all night and trying to decide the best way to assassinate Fiallo, the officers finally abandoned their plan. Dick Fiallo was not murdered and later testified in the home invasion case.
Carbello was sentenced to concurrent terms of 15 years imprisonment on each count, including cocaine charges, marijuana distribution, and conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. Osvaldo Coello was sentenced to 35 years in Federal Prision for his part in the Miami River Scandal. Pablo “Tatico” Martinez was arrested and convicted in 1989, and is currently serving his 24 year sentence. Arturo de la Vega received a 30 year sentence, and is currently out on parole. Rodolfo Arias turned state’s witness and testified against seven other officers. For his cooperation, he received a 10 year sentence, and served only 3 ½ years. From there he spent several years in the Witness Protection Program. There have been several other law enforcement officials still being convicted for their crimes involved with the Miami River Scandal. Jose Gonzales was never convicted in his breach of accountability in the 1980’s, but is being investigated for his participation in the assassination attempt on Fiallo.
Throughout history, there are a plethora of examples of power corrupting. Police officers are not immune to this phenomenon. There is barely a day that passes when you watch the news or read the paper, and there isn’t a story of police officers being investigated for corrupt activities somewhere in the United States. In Washington, the FBI tracks police corruption cases nationwide and have found that 59% of them are drug related. They also see a pattern in how good cops go bad (Stuart). When money and opportunity present itself, an officer may be tempted to use this to their advantage. When the news of these corrupt activities breaks, the officer, the force, and law enforcement everywhere is affected in the eyes of the public. It compromises the feelings of safety in the community and will take years to repair their image.
“The danger of police corruption, and this is that it may invert the formal goals of the organization and may lead to the use of organizational power to encourage and crime rather than to deter it.” (Sherman). The basic definition for corruption in policing is typically viewed as the misuse of authority by an officer acting officially to attain their own personal wants or needs. There are three distinct elements of police corruption that must be present in order to convict the officer of the breach of accountability. They are: 1) The misuse of authority, 2) The misuse of official capacity, 3) The misuse of personal attainment (Dantzker). These elements are all present in the Miami River Cop Scandal. Many years of their corruption went by before their crimes were discovered. It is estimated that each officer involved in the groups with Carbello and Coello made anywhere from $200,000.00 to $2 million each. It isn’t hard to understand how there could be temptation there. Police Officers are fallible people who can still make mistakes and poor decisions.
Works Cited:
Carballo, Petitioner v. United States of America/Coello, Petitioner v. United States of America, No. 90-1252, No. 90-7501. Supreme Court of the United States, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. October Term 1990
Carter, David L. (1986). Deviance and Police. Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co.
Duntzker, Mark L. (1995). Understanding Today’s Police. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kissell, Ted B. (April 6, 2000). “River of Sleaze”. Miami New Times. Miami, Florida.
Sherman, Lawrence W. (1978). Scandal and Reform. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Stuart, Charles C. “When Cops Go Bad”, Frontline #901. Original Airdate: October 16, 1990.
www.pbs.org. Copyright 1995-2006 WGBH Educational Foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)