A question from a reader:
Q: Teenagers threw rocks through my picture windows doing about $1000 worth of damage. The rocks have been recovered. They are smooth but do not have a "glass finish". We are about 80% sure we know who did it. Of course, they deny being the vandals. My police dept. is not interested in helping us.
They said that fingerprints could not be taken from the rocks (they never examined the rocks). I want to stop this vandalism and hold the culprits responsible for the damage. Can fingerprints be taken from the rocks?
My response:
A: Don't be too hard on your Police Department. They know from experience that the likelihood of lifting identifiable fingerprints from a rock - at least with the technology available to most local law enforcement agencies - is virtually zero. There is equipment at some larger crime labs that could do the job, but it's generally not available for solving relatively minor vandalism cases. I'm sure $1,000 doesn't seem minor to you but when seen as part of the bigger crime picture, it is.
Even if law enforcement was able to lift a print from the rock, problems remain. First and foremost is the issue of who supplied the print. There has to already be a comparison print on file somewhere to get a match. Since the person you suspect is a juvenile, chances are his or her fingerprints are not on file and mere suspicion is probably not enough to bring them in and take their prints. Even if there is a comparison print on file, the time and cost to locate and match it may not be justified.
And finally, even if you could lift a print and match it to someone, the chances of successfully prosecuting them are slim. A good defense attorney would argue that his client had a habit of picking up rocks as they innocently walked along the streets. They would argue that their client's prints are on lots of rocks but some other person threw this particular rock and their prints just were not found. That could create reasonable doubt, and convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Without a credible witness you could never prove that your suspect was the rock thrower. District Attorneys get re-elected based - at least in part - on the number of cases their office successfully prosecutes. They don't prosecute cases they know they can't win...and they shouldn't. Prosecutions are expensive and the DA is obligated to spend public money responsibly. Same goes for the police. They have to expend their limited resources where they will be most effective.
Unfortunately, while they are certainly entertaining, the various CSI TV shows and their TV crime fighter counterparts present an unrealistic picture of real life crime scene investigation. Much of the technology used by our TV heros either doesn't exist as it is portrayed, or is so exotic and expensive that only a very few major crime labs have it. As such, demand vastly outstrips availability and serious crimes get priority.
If this is an ongoing problem I recommend you install video surveillance equipment to document the crimes. Give them pictures of your vandals in action and I think you will find your police department to be much more responsive.
Recent Comments