Why don't we use toe prints?

I think they use foot prints of newborns to check for switched at birth issues, but feet are usually too inaccessible for frequent identification use. Imagine if a women had to take off her pantyhose everytime she needed to be identified.

Because people wear shoes.

Toes probably only have partial prints at any given time. I’m just guessing here. I know a friend of mine has to use her fingerprint to access certain areas in her job and she can’t use her forefinger because she uses it so much on touchscreen computers her fingerprint is not always readable. She may also use facecreams that have acids n them, which is very common, that might erase the prints on that finger also, but I didn’t ask her. Feet can get calloused or roughed up or rubbed and I would assume it interferes with prints.

Then people would be suspicious that there are crimes afoot.

That’s just it, they do…kinda.
Police take photographic evidence of shoe prints which can often lead to an arrest or charge.
Particularly useful with your average burglary where trainers with distinctive patterns are usually worn to kick a door in.

Using one set of prints for bodies and another for crimes? How inconvenient. I think fingerprints work just fine in most cases. There’s really no need to use toes.

@drhat77 Who still wears pantyhose?

@livelaughlove21 my wife

Thanks for the input. I guess I don’t wear panty hose and the ridges on my feet are much more pronounced then my worn down fingertips as @Judi noted so it was a passing fancy of an idea. Never thought about partial toeprints etc. But I suppose it is a silly idea.