ASTM E2286-03

Standard Guide for Examination of Dry Seal Impressions

SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides procedures that should be used by forensic document examiners (Descriptions E 444) for examinations and comparisons involving dry seal devices and their impressions.
1.2 These procedures are applicable whether the examination(s) and comparison(s) is of questioned and known items or of exclusively questioned items.
1.3 These procedures include evaluation of the sufficiency of the material available for examination.
1.4 The particular methods employed in a given case will depend upon the nature and sufficiency of the material available for examination.
1.5 This guide may not cover all aspects of particularly unusual or uncommon examinations.
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements prior to use.

General Information

• Status: Historical
• Publication Date: 09-Mar-2003
• ICS: 03.160 - Law. Administration
• Technical Committee: E30 - Forensic Sciences

Relations

• Replaced By: ASTM E2286-03e1 - Standard Guide for Examination of Dry Seal Impressions
• Effective Date: 10-Mar-2003

Standards Content (Sample)

NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation:E2286–03
Standard Guide for
Examination of Dry Seal Impressions
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 2286; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 3.2.1 dry seal, n—a non-inked mechanical device which
embosses a design on paper.
1.1 This guide provides procedures that should be used by
3.2.2 embossment variation, n—non-uniformity of the dry
forensic document examiners (Descriptions E 444) for exami-
seal impression on the paper stock. It can be caused by the
nations and comparisons involving dry seal devices and their
manner of application or by defects in the dry seal.
impressions.
3.2.3 impression, n—an image formed by pressure.
1.2 These procedures are applicable whether the examina-
tion(s) and comparison(s) is of questioned and known items or
4. Significance and Use
of exclusively questioned items.
4.1 The procedures outlined here are grounded in the
1.3 These procedures include evaluation of the sufficiency
generally accepted body of knowledge and experience in the
of the material available for examination.
field of forensic document examination. By following these
1.4 The particular methods employed in a given case will
procedures, a forensic document examiner can reliably reach
depend upon the nature and sufficiency of the material avail-
an opinion concerning whether two or more dry seal impres-
able for examination.
sions have a common origin, or if a dry seal impression was
1.5 This guide may not cover all aspects of particularly
created by a specific dry seal device.
unusual or uncommon examinations.
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the
5. Interferences
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
5.1 Items submitted for examination may have inherent
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
limitations that can interfere with the procedures in this guide.
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
Limitations should be noted and recorded.
bility of regulatory requirements prior to use.
5.2 Limitations can be due to submission of non-original
2. Referenced Documents documents, limited quantity or comparability, or condition of
the items submitted for examination (for example, distorted
2.1 ASTM Standards:
impressions, partially imprinted impressions, or variations in
E 444 Descriptions of Scope of Work Relating to Forensic
2 surface texture). Such features are taken into account in this
Document Examiners
guide.
E 1658 Terminology for Expressing conclusions for Foren-
2 5.3 The results of prior storage, handling, testing, or chemi-
sic Document Examiners
2 cal processing (for example, for latent prints) may interfere
E 1732 Terminology Relating to Forensic Science
with the ability of the examiner to see certain characteristics.
E 2195 Terminology Relating to to the Examination of
2 The effects can include, but are not limited to, flattening of the
Questioned Documents
embossmentorimpression,partialdestructionofthepaper,and
3. Terminology stains. Whenever possible, document examinations should be
conducted prior to any chemical processing. Items should be
3.1 Definitions—For definitions of terms in this guide, refer
handled appropriately to avoid compromising subsequent ex-
toTerminologyE 1658,TerminologyE 1732,andTerminology
aminations (for example, with clean gloves).
E 2195.
5.4 Consideration should be given to the possibility that a
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
dry seal device can be manufactured which duplicates the
impressions of another dry seal.
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E30 on Forensic
6. Equipment and Requirements
Sciences and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E30.02 on Questioned
Documents.
6.1 Appropriate light source(s) of sufficient intensity to
Current edition approved March 10, 2003. Published April 2003.
allow fine detail to be distinguished.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 14.02.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
E2286–03
NOTE 1—Natural light, incandescent or fluorescent sources, or fiber
7.10 If none of the known specimen impressions are suit-
optic lighting systems are generally utilized. Transmitted illumination,
able for comparison and no others are obtained, discontinue
side lighting, and vertical incident lighting have been found useful.
these procedures and report accordingly.
7.11 Conduct a side-by-side comparison of the questioned
6.2 Magnification sufficient to allow fine detail to be distin-
impressions, or the questioned impression to the known im-
guished.
pressions and/or to the dry seal device(s).
6.3 Other apparatus as appropriate.
7.11.1 Compare class characteristics (for example, impres-
6.4 Imaging or other equipment for recording observations
sion format, typeface design, other present designs and relative
as required.
sizes). If different, discontinue and report accordingly.
6.5 Sufficient time and facilities to complete all applicable
7.11.2 Compare individualizing characteristics in common
procedures.
such as wear and damage defects, embossment variation
patterns.
7. Procedure
7.12 Evaluate similarities, differences, and limitations. De-
7.1 All procedures shall be performed when applicable and
termine their significance indi
...