# Finger Prints vs. "Ear Prints" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 30, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finger-prints-vs-ear-prints/301901 "2005-04-30T22:54:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ronald\_C.Semone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/cc9497/32.png) [@Ronald\_C.Semone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ronald_C.Semone)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finger-prints-vs-ear-prints/301901/1 "2005-04-30T22:54:05Z")
I recall reading years ago that unless surgically altered the shape and exterior structure of a person’s ear is just as unchanging and unique to that person as is his or her fingerprints. Is there any evidence that this is true? And if it is, why is it not used in identifications? ---
**Author:** ![Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/regallag_the_axe/32/445_2.png) [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Regallag_The_Axe)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finger-prints-vs-ear-prints/301901/2 "2005-04-30T22:57:48Z")
Well, I don’t know if it’s true, but as for it’s use as a form of identification, do you really want to have to cover your ear in ink, and press it against a piece of paper? It’s just a bit unwieldy, when finger prints are much easier. And it’s much easier to surgically alter the shape of one’s ear. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2005, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finger-prints-vs-ear-prints/301901/3 "2005-04-30T23:05:44Z")
Not quite so useful as fingerprints in a criminal investigation, as people generally leave fingerprints on things by simple virtue of _handling them_. Not so with ear prints (although it’s an amusing mental image). ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finger-prints-vs-ear-prints/301901/4 "2005-05-01T03:22:27Z")
It _is_ used in identification - when I got a passport in '96 (as a youth) I had long hair and they made me put it back behind my ears so they’d show, they said because of identification purposes. My next passport, maybe in '01?, I had short hair and they didn’t say anything about my ears. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finger-prints-vs-ear-prints/301901/5 "2005-05-01T05:33:32Z")
Earprint evidence can and is used in criminal proceedings. Housebreakers will often put their ear to a window to find out if anyone is in the building. I’m not aware that there is a national earprint database, however, just like feetprints, or even the footwear prints which reveal a particular walking pattern(even if the actual footwear used in the crime is never discovered), they can be matched up as evidence is a suspect is arrested. ---
**Author:** ![Ronald\_C.Semone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/cc9497/32.png) [@Ronald\_C.Semone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ronald_C.Semone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finger-prints-vs-ear-prints/301901/6 "2005-05-01T11:56:54Z")
I appreciate the answers so far, but what I had in mind were situations like a bank robber being captured on a video camera with a clear view of his ear. When a suspect is later apprehended, is there an effort made to compare the suspect’s ear with the one in the video? ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finger-prints-vs-ear-prints/301901/7 "2005-05-01T12:29:17Z")
In the scenario you describe, if there was something distinctive, such as a piece missing having previously been bitten off, then it would almost certainly be used in an identification. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finger-prints-vs-ear-prints/301901/8 "2005-05-01T17:43:14Z")
Presumably the advantage in earprints is that a witness can potentially discern most of the major ear features just by looking, without needing inkpads and the like. But very few people are trained to pick out ear features on sight, so this is unlikely to be useful often. And if you have a photograph or the like, there are plenty of other facial features which can be and I presume are used in identification.