Microstamping: Improving the Value of Trace Evidence

Why is it that I like trace evidence people? It seems to have a lot to do with their ability to see the bigger picture. Over the last 14 years, I have been introduced to a number of interesting people within the forensic community, but what I have gleaned is that trace evidence people do not tend to look at their careers as static and bureaucratic.

Recently I read a technical paper written by a group of Australian forensic scientists which was titled, “Forensic Science in the 21st century- Will Trace Evidence Ever Reach the Next Level?”[1]

What a great article to read and one that emphasized the fact that forensic science is dynamic and always evolving. Of special note was how forensic science and the methods used have been valued. As indicated in the paper, DNA and fingerprint evidence are more valuable than other forms of evidence when trying to identify or confirm a persons guilt or innocence, however other trace evidence can provide valuable leads or information for reconstructing the crime. The paper provides some very good insight into the future evolution of the science of forensics and the need for increased development of new tools and techniques.

What stuck me was the fact that microstamping is evolutionary as well. Evolving from traditional firearm and tool mark examination, microstamping simply took the next step – the use of intentional tool markings, instead of relying only on unintentional tool marks.

A benefit of microstamping is that it doesn’t replace traditional firearm and tool mark analysis, it augments it. By leveraging highly trained forensic firearm examiners and their existing equipment and infrastructure, microstamping offers new opportunities to generate leads, when firearms are not recovered at the crime scene.

The Australian forensic scientists, who wrote the paper, summed up the true value of all trace evidence and by default the value of microstamping when they surmised that the value of trace evidence does not only reside in its ability to be used in court, but in its ability to provide information for; “reconstructing the crime scene, or a series of events, identifying links between different cases or, more broadly, systematically analyzing large scale criminal phenomena. The value of integrating traditional forensic evidence with other dimensions of the investigative process has recently been highlighted by research in an area known as forensic intelligence. In our opinion, although rapidly growing, the novel application of forensic science data is still under exploited.”[1]

We recommend reading the full article to understand the challenges faced by today’s forensic scientists.

[1] Roux, C, et al, “Forensic Science in the 21st Century- Will Trace Evidence Ever Reach the Next Level?” (NIJ / FBI) Trace Evidence Conference, August 2007
http://projects.nfstc.org/trace/docs/final/Roux_21st_century.pdf

Firearm Industry Representative Gigantic Blunder!!! : Using RFID Firearm Tracking Technology To Discredit Microstamping

During testimony in Connecticut, March 17th, 2008, at the request of the firearm industry representative groups who say they are protecting our 2nd amendment rights, the head of New Product Development and the Chief Counsel from a Connecticut Firearms producer, bungled an attempt to discredit microstamping. See the video on the Connecticut legislature website.

How did they do this? In simple terms they publicly acknowledged and emphasized that because they failed to apply laser technology to make appropriate 2D barcodes for tracking military firearms that they ended up opting for RFID tracking.

Why is this significant? It means they publicly stated that they have successfully implemented Radio Frequency Identification technology (RFID) to track each individual firearm from their manufacturing facility to their final destination.
The Firearm Co. from Connecticut stated during testimony that they are implementing RFID to military firearms. As is always the case, they focused on crates first and testified that they now have been placing the RFID tags on individual firearm boxes and next based on military press releases, the military wants RFID tags on the rifles and pistols themselves.

So, according to the firearm indsutry representatives microstamping which is passive and benign, is supposedly EVIL!!! And to prove it they bring forward a firearms company from Connecticut who testify the use of ACTIVE Radio Frequency ID tags is better. What kind of strategy is this?

RFID is an ACTIVE tagging device, which can be read from a distance and be used to track where you are if you conceal carry. What was the industry representative thinking about? Who is planning the testimony strategies? Whose idea was it to use the success of RFID tagging and tracking for military firearms as the best way to discredit microstamping?

Microstamping of firearms is simple, passive, cost effective and benign. Microstamping also allows the industry to control its destiny and protect against the use of RFID or ammunition serialization.

Microstamping provides the firearms industry a bridge to ensure the protection of 2nd amendment rights while creating a partnership with law enforcement to help reduce illegal trafficking of small arms to criminal networks.

Microstamping Research Paper Published

A new research paper was presented at the SPIE Optics & Technology Conference in San Diego, August 2008. The paper was part of the Optical Technologies for Arming, Safing, Fusing and Firing IV Conference and introduced research covering the testing of a Colt 1991 A1, 1911 style, .45 ACP semiautomatic pistol.

This represents the first peer reviewed publication of fully optimized and current state of the art microstamping technology as applied to firearms. Over the last 14 years, the invetors of the technology, Todd Lizotte and Orest Ohar have presented their work informally due to the proprietary nature of the technology. Since they have offered the technology royalty free for domestic civilian markets, further archive datasets are going to be shared with the scientific community.

So far many of the research papers, such as the UC Davis study which was a wear study of the firing pins themselves and others, had all utilized R&D test pins that were never optimized to the specific firearms that were being tested. Even with this worse case scenario, the results from these non-optimized firearm were still very good, if not remarkable.

The SPIE paper discloses the power of the the extraction method for forensic benefit, a key feature over looked by all other research papers. A unqiue feature of the research paper was a very basic comparison of microstamping in relation to existing methods of firearms identification. It should be stated, microstaming is an evolution of firearms identification, it augments the science - It doesn't replace it.

The SPIE research reported a 1500 round test of a 1991 A1 (1911) model firearm that was fully optimized. It consistantly had an extraction rate of >90% over teh entire 1500 rounds. Extraction is the process of assembling the code found on the cartrdiges at a crime scene. The 1991 A1, .45 ACP semiautomatic firearm had an extraction rate of >90% with a single cartridge and ~98% when two cartrdiges are found at a crime scene.

Pivotal Developmnet is presenting a comprehensive series of research and application papers next year which will show some of the latest data completed in 2008.

7th LIVE FIRE Microstamping Demonstration

The 7th Microstamping Live Fire Demonstration took place on November 18th in Trumbull, Connecticut. We brought a surprise to this event since opponents always attempt to quote and use the UC Davis study as an example of how Microstamping doesn’t work with small calibers or rim fire cartridges, such as .22 LR.

The surprise was a brand new demonstration model that was added to the line up, a .22 LR Ruger Mark III. The Ruger Mark III was brought to the live fire demonstration and fired by the Trumbull police department range officer.

The Ruger Mark III worked flawlessly and had been fired >500 times prior to its arrival at the test in Connecticut. We continue to educate and explain to people that the UC Davis study focused on wear characteristics and since we were not allowed access to the firearms or perform a cycle of fire analysis of test fired cartridges, it was impossible to optimize the firearms. Our demonstration model Ruger Mark III, clearly shows that when testing microstamping in terms of a method of improving the quality of forensic evidence, optimization is critical. With over 14 years of development, Pivotal Development has created a very straightforward optimization process that can match the microstamping elements to the dynamics of the firearm, ensuring a high degree of extractability of the code from cartridge evidence.

A number of Police Chiefs were in attendance for the demonstration and the presentation.

Here is a list of live fire demonstrations that have taken place:

1st 5/22/06 CHP range in Sacramento, CA

2nd 7/27/06 Boston Police Department in Boston, MA

3rd 6/18/07 Capital City Police Department, Washington DC

4th 8/14/07 Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles, CA

5th 3/3/08 Hartford Police Department, Hartford, CT

6th 5/19/08 New York State Police, Albany, NY

7th 11/18/08 Trumbull Police Department, Trumbull, CT

If you would like to have a live demonstration at your law enforcement facility, please give us a call at Microstamping Technology Center 1-203-304-2452