When a fingerprint is found at a crime scene it is a human examiner who is faced with the task of identifying the person who left it – a task that falls squarely in the domain of psychology. Even though fingerprints have been used in criminal courts for more than 100 years, there have been no properly controlled experiments on the identification accuracy of fingerprint examiners. The National Academy of Sciences has also condemned experts' claim of infallibility as scientifically implausible. We show that qualified court-practicing fingerprint experts are exceedingly accurate compared to novices, but are not infallible. Experts err on the side of caution by making errors that would free the guilty rather than convict the innocent. Even so, they do make errors that may lead to false convictions. Considering the central role of humans in forensic identification, the field would benefit from further psychological research.