Digitally scanned fingerprints admissible without need for expert explanation of digital scanning technology

EVIDENCE/SENTENCING United States v. Lauder, No. 04-2120, ___ F.3d ___(10th Cir. Jun. 8, 2005)(New Mexico). Appeal of convictions and sentence for possession and conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and maintaining a place for manufacture and distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)-(B), 856(a)(1), 860(a). HELD: (1) Admissibility of fingerprint evidence obtained by live "skin" or live "scan" digital imaging technology falls within framework of Rule 901 of Federal Rules of Evidence regarding authenticity and accuracy of images, not framework established by Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), governing admissibility of expert testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence. Every case involving data collection equipment used to obtain evidence – whether it be computers, cameras, or speed guns – does not automatically require Daubert hearing regarding physics behind operation of machine. (2) While district court erred in mandatorily applying sentencing guidelines under United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), defendant failed to show under fourth prong of plain error test that error seriously affected fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings. Actual sentence (five months above bottom of guideline range), trial evidence supporting judge-found drug quantity amounts, and statements by district court judge all indicate that remand would only result in reimposition of same sentence. Read the opinion here.