Finger Prints

Status
Not open for further replies.
.38 Special said:
In California the fingerprint actually is on the license itself. What good that does, I have no idea.

Regardless, I've been fingerprinted so many times in so many places that there's no point in worrying about it.
Click to expand...
I was about to post, yes, in Cali you have to give your thumbprint to get a driver license.

Now that I live in AZ, I was happily able to get a carry permit. For that I had to give all 10 fingers.
 
If I remember correctly, every time a law enforcement agency takes prints, they’re required to send a copy to the FBI.

As far as retaining them, I know for a fact that when the NYPD is required by law to destroy prints in their possession, as when a case is dismissed or a juvenile is involved, somehow they don’t.

Probably no different than any other bureaucratic agency who never destroy information they’ve gathered.
 
tws3b2 said:
This has probably been discussed several time. But if it has I missed it. When I applied for a carry permit, I had to give my finger prints. I assume it's the same everywhere. I assumed they take your prints to check if you are a felon. But what happens to you prints after that? Are they kept in the fbi or local law files or trashed?
Maybe just me but for the life of me I can't understand how it can be legal. 5th amendment. Testifying against yourself without being informed of your rights and being sure you understand them. Seems to me if they can be used against you in Any Legal Way it would be Unconstitutional.
Am I right? Or Missing something, again?
Click to expand...
To sum up what others have said: (1) the self-incrimination clause of the A5 is about testimony, not searches; and (2) you are engaged in a voluntary activity, so you're not being compelled to do anything.

As an aside, I got fingerprinted for the Bar exam, for my CHCL, for my suppressor, and have to have it done every couple of years for ACIC access.
 
RickD427 said:
Things may be starting to shift a bit. I have seen some trial court rulings that the use of biometrics to access computer records is controlled by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, but I haven't seen any of those cases make it through the appellate process to become published decisions.
Click to expand...

I've been doing the occasional search on this, ever since reading a while back about passwords, security, biometrics and such after reading an article about how law enforcement can simply unlock your phone using your own biometrics. Forced entry into digital devices by using a person's biometrics to unlock the content without their consent (and at times without a search warrant) may or may not be legal. Why? Because unlocking a smartphone can constitute testimonial evidence.

Turns out that under current laws you have far more protection of your digital information under the laws if you use passwords. Passwords in conjunction with PKI would be even more secure, but most people don't use, or have the capability to use, PKI with things like cell phones or tablets.

Biometrics, however, do not carry the same levels of protection under the law when it comes to accessing your digital information.

Let's say you are arrested and law enforcement wants to search your phone. (Let's not consider a search warrant here, but just the physical accessibility of this.) If you have the phone password protected, they cannot access it (easily, anyway) unless they have the password. They cannot force you to give up the password. And if the only person who has that password is you, then it's pretty safe against a search. Safe enough, hopefully, to at least get you to the point of an attorney working for you who understands the applicable laws and will be able to fight for you accordingly.

However, if your phone is protected by biometrics (fingerprint or facial recognition, for example), then you have no protection against law enforcement involuntarily using your biometrics to access your locked phone. Biometrics are not (as yet, anyway) afforded the same protections as something you would have to actually tell someone else would be. They can physically apply your finger to the phone or present your face to your phone's camera to unlock it.

It's a fascinating legal issue (well...at least as fascinating as a non-attorney can find it).

But fingerprints as ID for the scope of this thread? That's not a legally protected issue, being that it's for identification purposes.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
I've been doing the occasional search on this, ever since reading a while back about passwords, security, biometrics and such after reading an article about how law enforcement can simply unlock your phone using your own biometrics. Forced entry into digital devices by using a person's biometrics to unlock the content without their consent (and at times without a search warrant) may or may not be legal. Why? Because unlocking a smartphone can constitute testimonial evidence.

Turns out that under current laws you have far more protection of your digital information under the laws if you use passwords. Passwords in conjunction with PKI would be even more secure, but most people don't use, or have the capability to use, PKI with things like cell phones or tablets.

Biometrics, however, do not carry the same levels of protection under the law when it comes to accessing your digital information.

Let's say you are arrested and law enforcement wants to search your phone. (Let's not consider a search warrant here, but just the physical accessibility of this.) If you have the phone password protected, they cannot access it (easily, anyway) unless they have the password. They cannot force you to give up the password. And if the only person who has that password is you, then it's pretty safe against a search. Safe enough, hopefully, to at least get you to the point of an attorney working for you who understands the applicable laws and will be able to fight for you accordingly.

However, if your phone is protected by biometrics (fingerprint or facial recognition, for example), then you have no protection against law enforcement involuntarily using your biometrics to access your locked phone. Biometrics are not (as yet, anyway) afforded the same protections as something you would have to actually tell someone else would be. They can physically apply your finger to the phone or present your face to your phone's camera to unlock it.

It's a fascinating legal issue (well...at least as fascinating as a non-attorney can find it).

But fingerprints as ID for the scope of this thread? That's not a legally protected issue, being that it's for identification purposes.
Click to expand...


Chief,

You make a lot of good points about the differences between passwords and biometrics, but the courts are still really split over passwords. Here's a couple of media reports illustrating the split:

https://www.newsweek.com/court-rule...ice-prosecution-first-ruling-its-kind-1466112

https://www.reuters.com/business/le...l-over-forced-password-disclosure-2021-05-17/

https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/21/court-police-suspects-passwords/

These are media reports, so please treat them with a corresponding degree of caution, and also note that the last report is two years old.
 
I take anything from the media with several grains of salt.

I'm also not an attorney, so I don't claim to understand all the nuances involved in the differences and what they can mean.

What I am sure of is that biometrics, such as fingerprints, do not afford me any "real" actual security or protection from government intrusion, but are really a matter of personal convenience.

But with respect to the OP, fingerprints under the context of identification are not a 5th Amendment issue.

With respect to a crime scene investigation (which is NOT anything like voluntarily rendering one's fingerprints for an application), fingerprints alone do not a case make. Not any more than, say, finding something with someone's name on it, like a driver's license, a letter, or some other such thing. There's more to an investigation than such simplistic bits of evidence. Means, motive, opportunity.
 
I had to give all ten on digital scan & in ink at the local police dept.
I wonder if they will ever want our DNA for identification for a license or gun purchases? LOL
 
Heck, many states, maybe all states, require fingerprinting just to get a realestate license

I know these states do: CA, WA, AZ, TX, NJ, FL


What's more questionable to me is, if I understand correctly, in Maryland you have to get a Handgun Qualification License, which requires fingerprinting, in order to buy a handgun but voter ID is claimed to be 'unconstitutional'.
 
Recipients of public assistance claim being fingerprinted violates their rights, yet I was required to be printed to work, and thus pay taxes which pays for public assistance.

Seems fair….

While I am an advocate of privacy, I understand certain situations require strong identification, and printing is the one that is least invasive.
 
I am retired military. They took my prints many times over the years. I have been trying to apply for my NYS Pistol Permit. Something I told myself I would never do. But my dad is getting older and wants me to starting transferring some pistols. I got the paperwork last July and took my class. Had an appointment in May 2021 to turn in the paperwork. Longs wait times indeed. Had to miss my appointment due to a work trip to Germany. Rescheduled for March of 2022. I already paid for the pistol course. I then paid for fingerprints. I have been checking the Sheriff's website daily to try to snag an earlier appointment. Monday I got one for a week from Friday. Now today I have to pay for fingerprints again since they have to be within 30 days of paperwork being turned in. I will have a bunch of money sunk into this process before I ever get a permit in hand. Twice finger printed when I know they are already in some databases somewhere.
 
Speedo66 said:
Do they think all of your fingerprints are somehow going to change after 30 days?
Click to expand...

While your fingerprints should not change within 30-60 days, they can and will change over time. It also depends on what you do for a living. When I did background checks on new members for Bikers Against Child Abuse, I had a lady that worked in a factory with caustic chemicals. We tried fingerprinting her 4 times with ink and several times with a computer and the FBI could not read any of them.
 
.308 Norma said:
Wow! If fingerprinting is "Unconstitutional," it sure seems strange to me that every person entering the US Armed Forces swears an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution, yet one of the first things that happens to them when they get to basic is they get fingerprinted.;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment
Click to expand...

I thought the first thing was someone told you who your mother was.:rofl:

But yes, in the military you are fingerprinted, and in my case, every federal agency I worked for took fresh fingerprints. And since China hacked into OPM back in 2014/2015, and stole 4 million or more Federal employee records, I'm sure China has my fingerprints as well as photos of my scars, DNA records, dental x-rays and maybe even my boot and **** size.:evil:
 
I work airside at airports all over the country and world. Every airport has to do their own background check for AOA (Aircraft Operations Area), which always includes fingerprints. So I’ve been fingerprinted more times than I can recall.
One thing that’s very concerning is the recent outsourcing of records to sloppy private companies. They pay people near minimum wage to transcribe court records that had not previously been digitized. There is no quality checks or cross referencing. So the databases many agencies use are being corrupt with incorrect or outdated information.
I know what you’re thinking; “So what? Doesn’t affect me”. Oh, but it will.
 
I remember two Thanksgivings ago, or two years ago on Thanksgiving, a fella telling a long drawn out story about how he had gotten arrested for littering (and creating a nuisance) some time before he was drafted into the army for Vietnam. After another long drawn out story about the induction down on Whitehall St, where he had some words with the attending sergeant over weather or not he had rehabilitated himself after his brush with the law. It all kinda blew up and the army decided not to take him, but sent his fingerprints off to Washington, and as he tells it, ""Friends, somewhere in Washington enshrined in some little folder, is a study in black and white of my fingerprints". So, I suppose you can take his word for it, but fair warning, he was a bit of a long hair hippie type, tried to start some movement getting people to walk into their local recruiting office, sing a bar of some cockamamie song and then walk out.:D
 
tws3b2 said:
You voluntary give up your finger prints for a pacific reason.
Click to expand...
Well, considering your location, I'd figure an atlantic reason. ;)

Got printed a couple times. I can't remember if they did it for ROTC, but they certainly did when I enlisted. I'd had a DWI in between those, and I definitely remember being printed then. Also for my second (and last) DWI, and again for a carry application class. (Utah. WI was satisfied with a copy of my DD214.)
 
bersaguy said:
I remember two Thanksgivings ago, or two years ago on Thanksgiving, a fella telling a long drawn out story about how he had gotten arrested for littering (and creating a nuisance) some time before he was drafted into the army for Vietnam. After another long drawn out story about the induction down on Whitehall St, where he had some words with the attending sergeant over weather or not he had rehabilitated himself after his brush with the law. It all kinda blew up and the army decided not to take him, but sent his fingerprints off to Washington, and as he tells it, ""Friends, somewhere in Washington enshrined in some little folder, is a study in black and white of my fingerprints". So, I suppose you can take his word for it, but fair warning, he was a bit of a long hair hippie type, tried to start some movement getting people to walk into their local recruiting office, sing a bar of some cockamamie song and then walk out.:D
Click to expand...

I see what you did there. I saw it before the end of line 2. Were you sitting on the group W bench when you heard this story?
 
Last edited:
CapnMac said:
This is not nefarious, it's bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

You might be right, but that bureaucracy is all encompassing. I don't want to tae this good discussion into the weeds, but there needs to be a limit imposed on what they store.

But yeah, anything you give up voluntarily is not a violation of the 5th. I think a few people have been convicted of crimes based on DNA samples they gave to "23 and me."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
3D Printed Lower
Replies
8
Views
695
MachIVshooter
MachIVshooter
S
  • Locked
Trust finger prints.
Replies
16
Views
2K
Elkins45
Elkins45
O
  • Locked
Out of state CCW permit to avoid fingerprinting?
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
ProShooter
P
P
  • Locked
How good do my finger prints have to be?
Replies
16
Views
941
proud2deviate
P
il.bill
  • Locked
5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 3-D printed gun organization
Replies
4
Views
731
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top