TexasCHLforum.com

It seems a good handful of folks on this board have been asked by DPS/FBI to resend new fingerprints for one reason or another.
What would those reasons be?
If you had to redo and resend your fingerprints, do you know why... what the problem was and why they were rejected?

The reason I'm asking is I'm now concerned about my fingerprints being rejected (I'm a worry wort don't ya know) as I had a healing diagonal cut on my middle finger, left hand and it showed as a thin white line on that print. Am I apt to be asked for a redo? (oh, I certainly hope not )

I don't recall anyone telling me that the rejection letter gave any specifics. The FPD Sgt. I have do prints for my class will give the applicant a letter stating that multiple attempts have been made to get better prints, but that they were no better. This seems to have worked for people with various problems.

Chas.

Just got processed thru FAST L1 electronic fingerprinting. $9.95 and 15 minutes
with quaranteed acceptance from the state for CHL. It sure saves on anxiety of getting
rejected fingerprints 3 weeks after the paperwork was mailed.
The bad side is by appointment only, no drop ins. You call or apply online at least the day
before you want to get processed. The Ft. Worth office is only open weekday afternoons,
I don't know the hours of the other places. There is a link on the DPS website.

astrorockhound

Thanks for the info here on this thread. I just did fingerprints a third time. The first was ink, then Seguin PD LIFESCAN, AND FINALLY( I hope) -- Fast L1 in Austin. DPS did not say why the prints were not satisfactory. I'll stay in touch-- TONY

You would be surprised what are submitted to the Feds as "print" cards. Cards with one hand printed only (for two handed people), thumbs only, 1/3 finger pad, blotches instead of ridge detail, one print across two finge spaces, etc. USELESS for entry into any database.

So, the Feds have had to reiterate what a full set of prints is, and they've really tightened their acceptance criteria (stating the obvious and practicing it). ALL fingers from both hands, nail bed to nail bed, within borders, etc., in hopes of upholding the "gold standard" of prints as positive, unique ID. This standard is also used by the State, not everyone follows it exactly, and it's probably a common reason print cards are rejected.

fn/form wrote:You would be surprised what are submitted to the Feds as "print" cards. Cards with one hand printed only (for two handed people), thumbs only, 1/3 finger pad, blotches instead of ridge detail, one print across two finge spaces, etc. USELESS for entry into any database.

So, the Feds have had to reiterate what a full set of prints is, and they've really tightened their acceptance criteria (stating the obvious and practicing it). ALL fingers from both hands, nail bed to nail bed, within borders, etc., in hopes of upholding the "gold standard" of prints as positive, unique ID. This standard is also used by the State, not everyone follows it exactly, and it's probably a common reason print cards are rejected.

If we have been fingerprinted once, I don't understand why they need need the set taken years later to be so perfect. If they can get prints from a glass why do they reject so many as less than perfect? I never understood that.

Liberty wrote:If we have been fingerprinted once, I don't understand why they need need the set taken years later to be so perfect. If they can get prints from a glass why do they reject so many as less than perfect? I never understood that.

When you are comparing fingerprints taken at the scene of a crime to a standard print (sometimes called an "exemplar, , on CSI, anyway), the exemplar should be as perfect as possible. Comparing junk prints to other junk prints will yield a lot of false negatives (failures to compare) and/or "positives" that could be vulnerable to a clever defense lawyer.

IMHO. IANAL. IANALEO.

LarryH wrote:

Liberty wrote:If we have been fingerprinted once, I don't understand why they need need the set taken years later to be so perfect. If they can get prints from a glass why do they reject so many as less than perfect? I never understood that.

When you are comparing fingerprints taken at the scene of a crime to a standard print (sometimes called an "exemplar, , on CSI, anyway), the exemplar should be as perfect as possible. Comparing junk prints to other junk prints will yield a lot of false negatives (failures to compare) and/or "positives" that could be vulnerable to a clever defense lawyer.

IMHO. IANAL. IANALEO.

I was wondering why once they get the exemplar, they need another set of prints every 5 years. I wouldthink less than perfect should be good enough the second or third time around. I think the answer is that they are the government, so common sense isn't a requirement.

Liberty wrote:I was wondering why once they get the exemplar, they need another set of prints every 5 years. I wouldthink less than perfect should be good enough the second or third time around. I think the answer is that they are the government, so common sense isn't a requirement.

I think you're right.

The prints were the only real downside to the whole chl process for me.
Firstly, the LEO that did my prints was talking to the class instructor the entire time he was trying to print me. I asked him if I could do it, but he was intent on mashing my fingers as hard as he could into the card. And when he was done I asked him if he really thought that those sets would do, and he said he never had anyone's prints that HE did ever get rejected.

Well, surprise, surprise, mine got rejected. Not only did I have to do the FAST laser printing, I had to wait 2 more months for my chl. I really thought about sending a complaint to that officer's sarge about him being a thick headed you-know-what. I was sent a small letter saying that I needed to redo my cards and mail them back. The rejected cards that they sent back were not the original, but photocopies (kinda a waste of taxpayer money imo, but what do I know, I just pay them to make mistakes right?) and at the bottom of the photocopied page there was a list of technical reasons why prints were not acceptable. The correct one for my instance was circled. I don't remember what all was on the list, or exactly what they circled, it's been a while since then and I threw them out shortly after receiving them.

My prints really don't show well on anything, and there have been a few times I've had my prints done, and the only times they've worked using ink is when I have done them myself. Even the chick at the laser scan place couldn't get readable prints. I had to scan each finger at least five times. I have a higher ridge per surface area than most people and it just doesn't show up well with any printing method.

Now, if I remember correctly, the instructor for my class said something along the lines of:
If you send in prints 3 times to DPS, and they fail, you have to retake the entire class and shooting portion. So basically, you pass "Go," pay $200 dollars and start over.

My advice is that if your ink prints fail the first time, do the FAST laser printing, because you will see on the screen, before they print the cards, if your prints will be good enough.

LGT wrote:

My advice is that if your ink prints fail the first time, do the FAST laser printing, because you will see on the screen, before they print the cards, if your prints will be good enough.

absolutely; except, that I'd send F.A.S.T. prints witth applicatiom.

It took Mrs. Oldgringo four (4) sets of prints and several letters to get her application off of whoever's desk was holding it. The last set of prints was by F.A.S.T.

LGT*** wrote:Now, if I remember correctly, the instructor for my class said something along the lines of:
If you send in prints 3 times to DPS, and they fail, you have to retake the entire class and shooting portion. So basically, you pass "Go," pay $200 dollars and start over.

This is incorrect. In fact, the FBI must accept the prints on the third set, and I believe DPS makes that their policy also.

Chas.

wouldn't that mean that you could just give them unreadable prints three times over?

LGT*** wrote:wouldn't that mean that you could just give them unreadable prints three times over?

In theory yes, but the converse would mean that an applicant could be perpetually rejected if they had fingers that could not be printed to the standards required by the DPS or FBI. Plus, the prints have to be taken by a LEO or someone certified to "roll prints" and there's not much chance they would intentionally roll bad prints. If caught, they could be prosecuted, not to mention lose their job.

Chas.

Just had mine done by the Lewisville PD. Gal in front of me took forever. LEO was mad when he called me in. Told me he got no print three times on three of her fingers. She finally told him she had been doing "crafts" last night and had glue on her fingers. When he finished mine the computer came back with something to the effect that three of mine could be better. I asked him to redo them. He said no, he had never had any come back and it wasn't necessary. I hope he is right. Don't want a delay and to do a new print card.