What You Need to Know About Footwear and Tire Tracks
Written by Dwane S. Hilderbrand   

WHEN A CRIMINAL HIDES EVIDENCE of their crime, they are said to be “covering their tracks”—a direct reference to footwear and tire track evidence.

Note: This article was originally written by Dwane S. Hilderbrand and the National Forensic Science Technology Center as an informational bulletin for law enforcement.

The use of oblique lighting brings out the maximum amount of detail in a print, in the sand. Credit: Dwane S. Hilderbrand

Footwear, such as shoes, sneakers, boots, or sandals, leave prints and impressions that are specific to their class—that is, the particular brand, style, type, and size. Similarly, the tread on each tire of a vehicle leaves tracks and impressions that are specific to its class. Thanks to searchable databases maintained by the FBI and other agencies, these prints, tracks, and impressions can be used to help identify the class of footwear or tire that made them. Investigators can then take this information and determine which stores sell a particular shoe, or the makes and models of vehicles that are equipped with that particular tire.

Footwear and tire tracks at a crime scene are a form of pattern evidence that can be documented, collected, preserved, and evaluated by a forensic footwear or tire tread examiner. Through scientific examination, comparison, and analysis, the examiner can use footwear and tire track evidence to clear the innocent, track down the guilty, and help the prosecution gain a conviction in court.

This is possible because, within a class of footwear tread patterns, unique individualized characteristics develop over time based on how each person walks, where they go, and in what they step. These unique characteristics can be used to match individual footwear to, or exclude it from, the scene of a crime. Just as with footwear, unique individualized characteristics develop in tires over time based on aspects of the vehicle (such as wheel alignment and inflation pressure) as well as how the vehicle is driven and over what surfaces. A skilled examiner can use this uniqueness to help solve crimes and close cases.

Principles of Footwear & Tire Tracks

Footwear and tire track evidence, if discovered and properly documented, can provide an important link between a suspect and a crime scene. As a significant form of physical evidence, tracks and impressions left behind at the crime scene can provide valuable information on where the crime occurred; the minimum number of suspects; the direction the suspect(s) traveled before, during and after the crime; whether they were on foot or traveled by vehicle; and any other crime scenes they may be connected to. As opposed to placing suspects at the crime scene, this information may be able to eliminate suspects as having been there.

The basic theory behind footwear and tire track analysis is that every shoe and tire has a manufactured surface that is capable of leaving an imprint or an impression. This imprint or impression can be documented, collected, and preserved using many different methods, and it can then be evaluated and compared to the original source. As shoes and tires wear, features change, and these changes may be reflected in the imprint or impression. When given sufficient clarity and individual identifying characteristics, a shoe or tire can be positively associated with an impression.

The process of examining footwear or tire track evidence takes into account three major characteristics:

1) Class characteristics result from the manufacturing process of the shoe or tire, such as overall tread design and elements, physical shape and size, and mold characteristics. These are subdivided into general class characteristics (within the overall design) and limited class characteristics (found only in specific or certain molds). For example, a particular brand, model, and size of tire will have a number of general class characteristics including its tread design and dimensions, but it could also have limited class characteristics arising from the use of different molds or from imperfections occurring in different production runs of that tire.

2) Wear characteristics are the natural erosion of the shoe or tire tread due to friction and abrasion that occur through use. These characteristics are subdivided into wear pattern (the beginning stages or basic position of wear), wear condition (the second degree or further advancement of the initial wear), and wear extreme (extensive wear to the point of destruction of the tread material). These continuous alterations of class and accidental characteristics can result in a unique appearance.

3) Individual characteristics are unique aspects of a particular shoe or tire that are not shared by any other shoe or tire. These could be from damage (such as a cut, gouge or crack) or some temporary alteration (such as a stone or twig stuck in the tread). These characteristics do not result from the manufacturing process*, but are accidental, unpredictable characteristics that result from use.

*An exception would be a manufacturing defect. If the defect occurred in only one shoe or tire, then it would be an individual characteristic; if multiple shoes or tires have the same defect, then it can be considered a limited class characteristic.

Applications of Footwear & Tire Tracks

Footwear and tire track evidence can be found at many crime scenes, especially crimes such as breaking and entering, burglary, assault and battery, hit and run, armed robbery, rape, and many homicides. At some point in time, the suspect(s) arrived at the scene, committed the crime, and then left the scene on foot or in a vehicle. This interaction with the scene of the crime usually results in some type of print or impression evidence being left behind.

Here are some examples of scenarios in which this evidence could be used.


• A suspect claims he was not at the scene of a murder, but a bloody shoeprint matching their shoe is found there.

• A suspect claims she found a door ajar and called 911, and then waited for police outside, but a shoeprint matching her shoe is found inside the house near an empty safe.

• A robbery suspect jumps onto the counter at a bank, leaving his shoeprint on it.

Tire Track

• Tire tracks are found emerging from a mud puddle on the street next to the victim of a shooting.

• Tire tracks are found on a dirt road in the woods where a body has been discovered.

• A child is hit by a car while playing on the sidewalk. There are no witnesses, paint chips, or broken glass at the scene, but tire tracks are found on the curb and in the grass.

Frequently Asked Questions

The following questions represent the most commonly asked questions and the basic information investigators, officers of the court, and potential jurors should know about the topic. Please note, questions may vary depending on the audience (officers of the court, general public/potential jurors, entry-level investigators, policymakers, agency leadership).

Q. What is the range of samples that could be used?

Footwear and tire tracks can be deposited on almost any surface, from paper to the human body, depending on the subject, the surface, and the environment. Footwear and tire tracks are divided into three types of crime scene prints:

1) A visible print is a transfer of residue or traces of material from the shoe or tire to the surface. This type can be seen by the naked eye without additional aids. Examples include:

• Footwear prints left by blood- or soil-stained footwear on carpet, concrete, asphalt, or grass.

• Tire tread impressions (from mud, blood, paint, etc.) found on road surfaces, driveways, or sidewalks.

2) A plastic print is a three-dimensional impression. It is a deformation of a soft surface. Examples include:

• Footwear impressions left in soft or wet soil, drying paint, or snow.

• Tire tread impressions found in soft or wet soil, wet concrete, or snow.

3) A latent print is one that is not readily visible to the naked eye. This type is created through static charges between the sole or tread design and the surface. It cannot be seen without the aid of powders, chemicals, or alternate light sources. Examples include:

• Footwear prints detected on a tile or hardwood floor, a shard of glass from a broken window pane, a window sill, a metal counter, or the seat of a chair.

• Tire tracks detected on road surfaces, driveways or sidewalks.

Q. How are the samples collected?

Shoeprints and tire tracks at crime scenes must be documented, collected, and preserved for examination and comparison later. This evidence is very easily damaged—mostly by neglect—so steps must be taken to protect these fragile impressions or they will be destroyed. Best practices include:

1) Once the scene has been secured, a controlled approach and exit is used to avoid disturbing or destroying evidence. The examiner steps into his or her own footprints whenever possible. Also, a restricted route is established for emergency personnel until the crime scene can be thoroughly searched for evidence. A systematic search of the area is conducted using a good flashlight at an oblique (very low) angle. General crime scene photographs document the entire crime scene, including the location of each visible shoeprint or tire track.

2) After general photographs are taken, high-resolution photography is used (sometimes with spray paint, chemical enhancers, or alternate light sources) to capture as much detail as possible.

3) Whenever possible, evidence is collected “as-is” and submitted to the laboratory for examination. For shoeprints and tire tracks that cannot be picked up, various lifting techniques are used to recover the evidence:

• A traditional adhesive lifter has a heavy coating of adhesive and is best suited for prints on smooth, non-delicate surfaces such as tiled surfaces, hardwood floors, or metal counters. It is usually used in conjunction with fingerprint powders.

• A gelatin lifter is a sheet of rubber with a low-adhesive gelatin layer on one side that can be used on almost any surface, including porous, rough, and textured surfaces. It is less tacky and more flexible than an adhesive lifter, allowing it to pick up a dusty shoeprint on a cardboard box, for example, but not tear the surface of the box. Its elasticity enables it to pick up a latent print on an uneven or curved surface, such as a light bulb, door knob, or stucco.

• An electrostatic dust print lifting device is best used on a dry or dusty residue impression and can be used on either a porous or non-porous surface. This device can even be used to recover an impression from the skin of a cadaver. It works by electrostatically charging particles within the residue, which are then attracted and bonded to a lifting film. An electrostatic dust lift must be protected after the lift is made by placing and tacking it down into a large, clean, pizza-type box.

• Any plastic (three-dimensional) footwear or tire impressions can be collected by casting. A well-stocked crime scene kit contains pre-measured plastic zipper bags of a powdered stone material such as dental stone that can be mixed with water right in the bag and poured into the impression. When it dries, this extremely hard and durable material captures the impression in three dimensions.

Once all the evidence has been captured, it may be processed to further enhance what is present or bring out what cannot be seen. For example, a photographed tire track can be enhanced through any number of digital enhancement programs to improve the results (e.g., Adobe Photoshop). Fingerprint powders and certain chemical stains or dyes can enhance what is already present or change the color to increase the contrast from the background. This enables lifted or cast evidence to be photographed or scanned.

Q. Who does the analysis and what kinds of qualifications should they have?

Most police departments in the United States have crime scene investigators who are responsible for the documentation, collection, and preservation of footwear and tire evidence using photography, lifting, chemicals, electronics, and casting methods. However, the evaluation and comparison of this evidence should be performed by a well-trained footwear and tire track examiner. Typically, they have received extensive training on all matter of footwear and tire manufacturing; evidence detection, recovery, handling, and examination procedures; laboratory and photography equipment and procedures; courtroom testimony and legal issues; and casework.

The Scientific Working Group on Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence (SWGTREAD) has a published standard that discusses the minimum qualifications and training for a footwear/tire track examiner. Additionally, the International Association for Identification (IAI) offers a recommended course of study for footwear and tire track examiners which takes the new examiners through more than 550 hours of training. IAI also certifies footwear (but not tire track) examiners; there are more than 60 IAI-certified footwear examiners worldwide.


Q. How and where is the analysis done?

The evidence needs to be submitted for examination along with the suspect’s shoes or tires following the policies and procedures set down by the submitted agency. Actual items of evidence are submitted to either crime laboratories or private laboratories according to the requesting agency’s policies and procedures. These items should be submitted in a manner that follows good chain-of-custody protocols.

The suspect’s known shoes/tires are used to make “test standards” (impressions of a known source for comparing to the evidence, typically through overlays or side-by-side comparisons). Most laboratories understand that it is not always practical to submit the known shoes or tires. In these situations, quality photographs or images can be used, if they meet certain guidelines. Any images that are created by scanning a piece of evidence should be done at 1000 dpi.

Actual shoes and tires should be made available for evaluation and comparison. Shoes should be packaged to avoid cross-contamination. Tires should remain on the vehicle, and the examiner needs to have access to that vehicle. In some cases, the examiner at the crime laboratory or private laboratory can assist the requesting agency in taking test standards from each known shoe or tire and submitting those for examination instead of having the vehicle or tires and rims submitted with the evidence. However, most examiners will request that the tires be available if needed during the examination.

During the examination and comparison, dividers, calipers, special lighting, and low magnification are often used for measuring the various elements within the tread design as well as the length of the impressions, and then comparing those measurements to what is seen in the crime scene print. Low magnification and special lighting are sometimes used to examine various characteristics to determine if they are in fact accidental in nature or something that was created during the manufacturing of the shoe.

Side-by-side comparisons are performed by placing the known shoe or tire alongside the crime scene print so that corresponding areas of the two can be examined. Test prints taken from the shoe or tire are also laid beside the crime scene prints. Transparencies may be produced and superimposed for comparison. With today’s computer technology, some examiners are using double or triple monitors to do side-by-side comparisons.

Computer databases containing reference files of shoe outsoles and tire treads are widely used to determine the brand or model of the shoe or tire being investigated. Some agencies use these computer programs to store and retrieve crime scene images of shoes or tires, and to search and compare crime to crime. It is important to note that shoe or tire database searching does not find potential “matches” as automated fingerprint identification systems can; it only finds tread design “look-alikes” for footwear and tire tread.

There are a number of systems, including FBI and fee-based commercial systems, each containing tens of thousands of shoe prints or thousands of tire tread prints. There are also private consulting companies that maintain their own database, and numerous websites that provide searchable tread images.

Sometimes when an investigator locates shoeprints or tire tracks at a crime scene, they just want to know what kind of shoe or tire made the impression. Many shoe outsole companies will assist examiners in determining the type of shoe for which they are searching, and in some cases, they will supply them with a photograph depicting the shoe. Some tire companies will assist examiners in this type of search as well. However, if an examiner is performing actual comparisons for a case, then nearly all shoe and tire companies will assist them. The actual comparison happens when the examiner has both the crime scene prints and the known shoe or tire.

It is very important for examiners to maintain their knowledge of shoes and tires, since the terminology and even the manufacturing processes within the industry can change frequently. When forensic examiners need assistance, they typically seek out a manufacturing company’s quality-control or legal department. In these instances, it is very helpful to be able to understand and use the proper terminology in order to get the assistance needed on a case.

The savvy examiner keeps up with the various trends around the world since some of the economic issues may have an effect on the shoe or tire being examined. For example, a company that produces shoe outsoles in Canada might decide to move their entire manufacturing process to Asia, which likely means that information on the company’s outsole can no longer be located in Canada.

Q. How much does the analysis cost? Who pays for the analysis?

Most state crime laboratories in the United States have a footwear/tire track examiner on staff who can perform analysis for police departments within their jurisdiction if the need arises. Depending on the arrangement, there may or may not be a fee associated with this service. Some police agencies have their own qualified examiner on staff.

If the analysis is performed by an outside (private) laboratory, then it usually has an associated cost. Fees run from $110 to $200 per hour plus expenses; any courtroom testimony is an extra charge.

Q. What kind of results should I expect?

Final results of a footwear/tire track examination are presented in a report that states the opinion of the examiner. It conveys the examiner’s observations and conclusions to the person or agency that requested the examination and to the court. It may also include additional statements concerning the likelihood that the shoe or tire made or did not make the questioned impression, supporting the examiner’s determination.

The results can be divided into four groups:

1) An individualization is when the class, wear, and individual characteristics agree or match sufficiently between the questioned impression and the known shoe or tire with no unexplainable differences. This is great news for the prosecution.

2) An elimination (or exclusion) is when the class, wear, or individual characteristics do not agree or match between the questioned impression and the known shoe or tire. This is great news for the suspect.

3) An inconclusive result occurs when there is not sufficient quality or quantity of information from the questioned impression to reach a meaningful scientific conclusion.

4) An association (or likelihood) can be drawn when the class, wear, and some individual characteristics agree between the questioned impression and the known shoe or tire, but not in sufficient quality or quantity to be certain of a match. Results can range from “likely” to “could have” to “similar but lacking sufficient detail to be conclusive”.

Q. What does the report look like and how are the results interpreted?

The report typically states what was submitted for analysis and the conclusion of the analysis: individualization, elimination (exclusion), inconclusive, or association (likelihood). Some reports from private laboratories include photographs of the examination and conclusion of the results.

Q. What are the limitations of the analysis?

The analysis basically requires two things: 1) the print, track or impression evidence, and 2) suspect shoes or tires. The analysis usually depends on the condition of the evidence. If it has been documented and collected properly, the analysis will run smoothly, provided that suspect shoes or tires are recovered so test standards can be taken.

There are a number of ways that evidence can be improperly documented and collected, thus limiting an examiners ability to perform an analysis:

1) Improperly photographing the evidence: Occasionally photographs of the evidence are of very poor quality (no scale, scale on the wrong plane, angle shots, poor lighting, not enough shots, etc.), which severely hampers the examination and comparison process.

2) Improper crime scene searching and security: If the initial officer on scene does not properly secure the scene and control traffic into and out of the scene, then potential latent prints can be ruined or never found at all.

3) Improper method or technique in lifting or casting the evidence: An inexperienced crime scene investigator can ruin evidence in a failed attempt to cast or lift an impression, either by choosing the wrong method or by performing the correct method incorrectly.

4) Improper sequence of documentation and collection: Evidence can be compromised if it is not properly documented before evidence collection occurs (for example, if an analyst swabs the soles of shoes for DNA testing prior to any photographic documentation).

Q. How is quality control and quality assurance performed?

Crime laboratories that are ASCLD/LAB accredited must follow certain policies and procedures to maintain their accreditation. This includes having a percentage of all cases technically reviewed by a second examiner. Other accrediting bodies have their own guidelines, which may vary from discipline to discipline.

SWGTREAD guidelines state that technical reviews and verifications are a necessity. Some laboratories have adopted the policy of 100% technical review and verification of all results.

IAI has established a footwear certification program that requires verification of results by its examiners. SWGTREAD guidelines state that all footwear and tire track cases should be technically reviewed and verified by a second independent qualified examiner, and IAI has accepted these guidelines. However, not all laboratories or police agencies have a second person.

The second examiner will usually review all the original examiner’s notes, then perform their own independent examination and comparison and form their own opinions. When there is a conflict of opinion between the original examiner and the second examiner in the final conclusions of an examination and comparison, the agency may seek out a third examiner if no reason can be found to favor one opinion over the other.

As for private laboratories, their quality control and quality assurance vary greatly. Some have policies and procedures that mirror the policies and procedures their founder or director followed while they were employed with a public agency; others doing private work have no formal procedures regarding quality.

Q. What are the admissibility tests/standards?

Ensuring proper chain of custody is of paramount importance to make certain that all evidence has been handled properly and that no tampering has occurred. This requires that a seamless chronological record be created indicating each person who takes possession of a piece of evidence, the duration of custody, and the security of the storage conditions. If this chain is broken at any time or shown to have gaps, the evidence could be deemed inadmissible in court.

Footwear and tire track evidence is reliant upon the expert analysis and interpretation of the footwear/tire track examiner. When the examiner is called upon to testify in court, their testimony carries the weight of their extensive training, expertise and reputation.

Q. Who can be an expert witness for this type of evidence? How do you find an expert witness?

Normally, police agencies have an expert on staff within their laboratory or someone from the state laboratory with suitable qualifications and experience. They can always hire an expert in this field. Federal Rule 702 states:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

The expert must be aware of and prepared for a possible Daubert hearing. Guidelines cover the following:

• What is the basic theory and has it been tested?

• Are there standards controlling the technique?

• Has the theory or technique been subjected to peer review and publication?

• What is the known or potential error rate?

• Is there general acceptance of the theory?

• Has the expert adequately accounted for alternative explanations?

• Has the expert unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion?

IAI certifies footwear (but not tire track) examiners. There are more than 60 IAI-certified footwear examiners.

Q. Is there anything else about this topic that would be important to the non-scientist?

Although interest in footwear and tire track evidence has increased over the years, many crime scene investigators and crime scene technicians still fail to recognize the importance and value of this evidence as physical evidence. Often, impressions or imprints are overlooked, improperly collected, or not collected at all.

Proper training in the areas of documentation, collection, and preservation of footwear and tire track evidence is essential. A lack of training in proper methods often results in this type of evidence being overlooked. Also, if the evidence is undervalued or misunderstood, then it won’t be found and properly collected. Contributing factors to the lack of success in finding and collecting this evidence may include:

• Skepticism of the investigator that impressions can still be located at the scene after people have walked through it.

• Incomplete searches of the crime scene.

• Investigator not making a second search of the area.

• Weather conditions.

Perhaps the biggest misconception is the importance of properly photographing footwear or tire track impressions, either at the crime scene or in the laboratory. If the photographs are not taken parallel and perpendicular to the impression, then the true size cannot be produced in order to compare to the actual shoe. Since there is only a slight difference between different shoe sizes, it is imperative to document the evidence with precision.

Another misconception is whether a shoe or tire can actually be positively identified as having made the crime scene prints. The answer is yes, but a certain minimum amount of quality and quantity of information must be present.


Adhesive lifter: Any variety of adhesive-coated materials or tapes used to lift fingerprints or footwear impressions. They are primarily used to lift powdered impressions from non-porous surfaces.

Cast: 1) A method of making a mold by first making a three-dimensional model of a shoe or tire and then forming the mold from that model. 2) The filling of a three-dimensional footwear or tire track impression with material that takes on and retains the characteristics that were left in that impression by the footwear or tire. 3) A method used in the lifting of two-dimensional footwear and/or tire impressions from rough surfaces.

Class characteristic: An intentional or unavoidable characteristic (such as physical shape, physical size, tread design/elements, or wear position) that repeats during the manufacturing process and is shared by one or more other shoes or tires.

DOT number: Department of Transportation serial number assigned to every tire sold in the United States. It gives information regarding the manufacturer, size, and date of manufacture of the tire.

Electrostatic dust print lifter: A system that applies a high-voltage electrostatic charge on a piece of lifting film, causing dust or residue particles from a print to transfer to the underside of the lifting film.

Elimination (exclusion): An elimination is established when the class, wear, and/or individual characteristics present in the questioned impression do not agree with those in the known shoe/tire.

Elimination impressions: Test impressions taken from the shoes and tires of the first responders and other known individuals for the purpose of discerning these impressions from the questioned crime scene impressions.

Identification: The positive association of an impression as having been made by a single shoe, to the exclusion of all others.

Inconclusive: A questioned impression that does not exhibit sufficient quality and/or quantity of information may be deemed inconclusive. This indicates that a meaningful scientific conclusion cannot be reached.

Individual characteristic: Something unique about the footwear or tire tread that is not shared by any other shoe or tire—even those from the same production run. It could result from damage or some temporary alteration, such as a stone caught in the tread.

Latent: A type of print that is not visible to the naked eye.

Lift: To transfer an impression from its original surface for the purpose of recovering it from the crime scene and for providing better contrast.

Negative impression: An impression that results when the contact area of a shoe or tire removes residue (such as dust, paint, or some spilled substance) from a surface, leaving behind a “clean” image of the print in the residue.

Outsole: The bottom portion of the shoe that provides durability and traction on a surface. It is the outer sole of the shoe, from the toe to the beginning of the heel, but exclusive of the heel itself. With leather soles the grain side of the leather is almost always used for the bottom face or exposed part. In a looser or broader sense, “bottom” may include insole and/or midsole.

Plastic: A type of print that is three-dimensional.

Positive impression: An impression that results when a shoe or tire deposits material onto a surface.

Stone hold: A characteristic created when a tread captures and holds a loose stone. Stone holds are considered individual characteristics.

Tread: The designed part of the shoe or tire that comes into contact with the ground or road.

Wear characteristics: Changes in the surface of the shoe outsole or tire tread that are observable in the impression and/or known shoe or tire, and that reflect the erosion of the surface of the shoe outsole or tire tread.

About the Author

Dwane Hilderbrand, M.ED, CFWE, CLPE has more than 42 years of experience in criminal justice, including several in the Identification Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 25 years with the Scottsdale, Arizona Police Department where he dedicated his government career to the development of his advanced technical analytical and testimonial skills. In November 2009, he began his own private forensic identification training and consulting business. Hilderbrand is highly skilled in a variety of forensic identification sciences but specializes in latent prints, crime scenes, ridgeology, the identification of deceased persons, and footwear/tire track impression evidence. He is a Certified Latent Print Examiner and a Certified Footwear Examiner through the International Association for Identification. He is also a Certified Teacher with the Maricopa County Community Colleges and Grand Canyon University in Arizona where he helps to design their crime scene investigator’s certificate program.

Additional Resources

International Association for Identification (IAI) Footwear Certification

Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology (SWGIT)

SWIGIT Section 9: General Guidelines for Photographing Footwear and Tire Impressions, Version 1.0 2013.09.27

Tread Forensics (formerly the Scientific Working Group on Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence (SWGTREAD))

OSAC Footwear & Tire Subcommittee


Bodziak, William J. Footwear Impression Evidence, Second Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2000).

Forensic Identification Training and Consulting Services website

Foster + Freeman Ltd. website for SICAR 6

Foster + Freeman Ltd. website for SoleMate

Foster + Freeman Ltd. website for TreadMate

“Guide for Minimum Qualifications and Training for a Forensic Footwear and/or Tire Tread Examiner,” SWGTREAD Published Standard (2006). PDF download

Hilderbrand, Dwane S., M.Ed. Footwear, the Missed Evidence, Second Edition. Staggs Publishing Company, Wildomar, CA (2007).

Laboratory Physical Evidence Bulletin #12: “Preservation of Shoe and Tire Impressions,” Quality Documents Program.

Lyle, D.P., M.D. “Chapter 14: Impressions: Shoes, Tires, Tools, and Fabrics,” Forensics: A Guide for Writers (Howdunit). Writer’s Digest Books, Cincinnati, OH (2008). pp. 303-315.

Tire Guides Inc. Website: http://tireguides.com/Home

This article appeared in the Winter 2017 issue of Evidence Technology Magazine.


< Prev   Next >

Lifting Latent Fingerprints from Difficult Surfaces

ALMOST ANYONE can find, process, and lift a latent print that happens to be in a logical and obvious place like a door handle, a beer can, or a butcher knife. But sometimes, a latent print is not just sitting there in a logical and obvious place. Sometimes, you have to use your imagination to find the print and your skills to lift it.