Police Begin Fingerprinting on Traffic Stops

[Gordon Fink]

We’ve been over this already. If roadside fingerprinting is voluntary, “Joe Scumbag†will simply decline, so I will still be arrested, charged, prosecuted, and hopefully acquitted in your scenario. I’m not any better off than I was before.

Which brings me back to this question: why am I being pulled over in the first place? Five miles per hour over the posted limit on an empty road? One of three taillights burned out? Missing registration sticker?

Thank God I don’t fit a profile.…

~G. Fink

 

[LawDog]

We’ve been over this already.

Yes, we have. And I pointed out (when we went over this before) that most of your critters will go ahead and print even if it's voluntary.

LawDog

 

[Coronach]

Especially because, depending on how this system is set up, it might not be possible to then link the print back to the offender. No information is given about whether or not prints are entered into AFIS- either as routine, or if warrants are issued. All we know for sure is that they are used to exclude the innocent, by comparing the print taken when a cite is issued to the print taken from the guy actually arrested.

Also, as Lawdog pointed out, most of these lads are perfectly happy to barter a potential day of reckoning further down the road for an immediate release rightfrickennow, and doing that requires making the grumpy guy in the uniform go away...oh, give you a fingerprint? Sure!

Believe me.

People talk to cops when they should shut up.

People allow cops to search when they really should not.

Will someone pulling a stunt like this pony up his prints, willingly?

Oh heck yeah he will. Its all done in the interest of seeming all nice, fluffy, friendly and innocent-like.

Mike

 

[stringj]

Coronach and LawDog,
If either of you were ever to pull me over, you would know I would be innocent of any other crime. How, you say? Simple, I would be the silent one that refuses both a search and a voluntary finger print.

Jerry

P.S. I know the above attitude could land me at a station house but, if I have learned nothing else from these forums, it is that freedom is messy.

 

[C96]

Lawdog & Coronach thanks for your explanations and time.
You both seem to have the patience of Job.

allan

 

[Sir Aardvark]

FUNCTION CREEP!, people...........FUNCTION CREEP!......

This is where a thing starts out innocuous enough, but then suddenly balloons into something else entirely.

Present Scenario: Cops will get people used to providing thier fingerprints to end "Identity theft" or "Mis-identification".

Future: Then, a couple years down the line, the Cops will suddenly start running every person's fingerprints through the system as a matter of routine.

Distant Future: Then they'll be asking for your DNA.

The Government is very clever at arriving at thier goals incrementally.
I'm certain that the proponents for this will state that this "is good for the people", etc. etc.

 

[tyme]

1) Should the police fingerprint you as a matter of routine if you get stopped in your car?
2) Should they take you to jail if you forget your DL?
3) Should they just stop enforcing traffic laws altogether?
4) Should they just accept that they will sometimes give innocent people a ride to jail and be happy with it?

The mistaken identity problem only occurs when the crime (the one the real perp skipped the court date for) isn't serious enough to book the perp for... but then becomes serious when the perp misses the hearing. Presumably this is because disrespect for the law is viewed as a serious social deficiency, even if the original crime was not.

Well, that cat is out of the bag. A lot of relatively law-abiding citizens don't respect the law these days. They've been abused; they've seen family or friends abused; they've seen media coverage about abuse by judges, juries, or LE. As a result, a lot of people withoutstanding warrants are minor criminals who have real, productive jobs and who aren't career criminals. What is the real social impact of arresting such people on petty criminal charges because they didn't show up for a hearing?

The solution is not to find new or more efficient or less erroneous ways to catch people who have skipped hearings -- stricter enforcement will only increase disrespect for the law. Rather, the correct response is to reform the law so that it makes some sense, at which point we may find that individuals cited with minor crimes once again feel a civic duty to attend court to see that justice is done, even if that means some small punishment for themselves.

Does anyone think that a speeder who misses a court date should be arrested, when hundreds of people speed excessively every day in each metropolitan area? It is simply not reasonable. Speeding can be irresponsible driving, but it doesn't have to be. If an old school bus is safe driving at 55mph down a highway, I can guarantee you that my car is at least as safe at 85mph. If it's really unsafe and the driver is actively threatening the safety and well being of others with a multi-ton vehicle, why in the world would you cite them and let them drive off?!

I guess that leads into jail overcrowding, but that's for another thread and another time.

 

[Art Eatman]

tyme, regardless of one's view on speed laws, they're part of the real world we're stuck with.

So, folks know the rules. First rule is, don't speed. Second rule stems from the first: If you're given a speeding ticket with that time within which to D-O do something, do it. Most tickets can be paid by mail and an actual court appearance is not required.

Folks that really wanna go real fast oughta buy'em some Nomex and a brain bucket and go where they give trophies instead of tickets. "Show that you can drive as fast as you can talk," as a buddy of mine was once told...

, Art

 

[Coronach]

Presumably this is because disrespect for the law is viewed as a serious social deficiency, even if the original crime was not.

Kindasorta, but not exactly.

Officers arrest people for crimes, but in the case of any misdemeanor* they can choose to release the suspect with a summons in lieu of arrest. This is, essentially, what a ticket is. It summons you to appear to before a judge for a trial on the charge. Sometimes** you have the option of just sending back in your summons with a plea of guilty and payment of the fine that the court would impose. This is the traffic ticket, in a nutshell.

Is this done because it is a petty offense? Absolutely. However, it is not like arrest was not an option in the first place, and its only a big deal now that you're showing "contempt" for the law. Arrest was always an option, and the 'system' tried to cut you a break.

Don't believe that arrest was always an option? Try not signing for receipt of the ticket.

* This will vary from state to state, but it is generally true.

** Almost always for minor traffic offenses

Does anyone think that a speeder who misses a court date should be arrested, when hundreds of people speed excessively every day in each metropolitan area? It is simply not reasonable.

I do. By being issued a ticket and signing it, you are stating that you will do one of three things:

1. Show up in court.
2. Pay out the ticket.
3. Contact the court and make alternative arrangements.

Failure to do this means that you have not honored your agreement, and the officer should have just arrested you in the first place...an oversight that will be rectified the next time you are encountered.

This is why I added one of the questions to my list, found above. If you don't arrest the absconders, you are essentially making honoring the tickets optional. I don't give a hoot about the revenue they generate, but I do care for my safety when I'm on the road. This is why I asked if you're in favor of dropping the role of traffic enforcement from the police department's duties. If you are, that's fine...but lets debate it elsewhere.

Sir Aardvark:

FUNCTION CREEP!, people...........FUNCTION CREEP!......

This is where a thing starts out innocuous enough, but then suddenly balloons into something else entirely.

Present Scenario: Cops will get people used to providing thier fingerprints to end "Identity theft" or "Mis-identification".

Future: Then, a couple years down the line, the Cops will suddenly start running every person's fingerprints through the system as a matter of routine.

Distant Future: Then they'll be asking for your DNA.

The Government is very clever at arriving at thier goals incrementally.
I'm certain that the proponents for this will state that this "is good for the people", etc. etc.

Absolutely a concern. WHich is why Lawdog and myself are kindy fidgety about this. We can see the benefit to society for doing this. What makes us worried is that 'this' can be a foot in the door for other, nastier things.

stringj

Coronach and LawDog,
If either of you were ever to pull me over, you would know I would be innocent of any other crime. How, you say? Simple, I would be the silent one that refuses both a search and a voluntary finger print.

P.S. I know the above attitude could land me at a station house but, if I have learned nothing else from these forums, it is that freedom is messy.

Actually, unless there is a warrant for you in a scenario like this one, or you are involved in some other fairly odd circumstance, it should not get you in any grief whatsoever. Consent declined is consent declined. No biggie. Its your right.

Mike

 

[Gordon Fink]

If we don’t even fight the little battles, how can we ever expect to win the big ones?

~G. Fink

 

[alan]

All:

I'm simply an over the hill rifle/pistol shooter, and by former profession, a retired Draftsman, so one might well ask re the following, "what the hell does this clown know". The question might be valid, however I will offer my thought on this finger printing business anyhow.

I believe that what we see here is simply the following. Some police bureaucrat decieded to see how far he or she could push the sheeple. We see for the moment, the end result of that thinking in this finger print business.

In my view, there is an obvious analog between the bureaucratic excess above described and the antics of the anti gunners. They will push things as far as they can, taking whatever concessions might be offered, for they know that there will always be "another day", during which they can try again.

 

[C96]

alan - I think I see it just the opposite. I think someone was trying a method that
might resolve some of the identification problems that occur with traffic citations.

It is a real problem and real people get hurt by it, and JoeScumbag is getting the free ride.

I guess I just don't see all of these bureaucratic conspiracies taking place.

But I've not been wearing tin foil for some time so maybe they have already gotten to me.

allan

 

[Art Eatman]

alan, I worked in and around state and federal government for some fifteen years. Most of these "weirdly" efforts are sincere in a desire to make things better. The problem is that there is little thought given to unintended consequences or unanticipated side-effects.

For instance, the Patriot Act isn't particularly harmful to Joe Sixpack as long as the Executive Branch has a generally benign view of the populace. It's the potential for abuse if the benign view changes to hostile that's the main problem.

Back in 1985/1986 during the Immigration Reform Law efforts of Simpson/Mazzoli, the idea of a national ID card was brought up in order that employers would find it much easier to obey the law against hiring illegals. On the surface, it's a Good Thing. The potential for loss of civil rights, however, is another story entirely.

You might gather that I'm more prone to imply stupidity or absence of adequate forethought as to bad legislation than I am "conspiracy" or "wilful deprivation of rights".

, Art

 

[alan]

Art Eatman offered:

alan, I worked in and around state and federal government for some fifteen years. Most of these "weirdly" efforts are sincere in a desire to make things better. The problem is that there is little thought given to unintended consequences or unanticipated side-effects.

For instance, the Patriot Act isn't particularly harmful to Joe Sixpack as long as the Executive Branch has a generally benign view of the populace. It's the potential for abuse if the benign view changes to hostile that's the main problem.

Back in 1985/1986 during the Immigration Reform Law efforts of Simpson/Mazzoli, the idea of a national ID card was brought up in order that employers would find it much easier to obey the law against hiring illegals. On the surface, it's a Good Thing. The potential for loss of civil rights, however, is another story entirely.

You might gather that I'm more prone to imply stupidity or absence of adequate forethought as to bad legislation than I am "conspiracy" or "wilful deprivation of rights".

****

Art,

Re the "unintended consequences" you mentioned, you are likely aware of the book, same title.

Next, you wrote:
For instance, the Patriot Act isn't particularly harmful to Joe Sixpack as long as the Executive Branch has a generally benign view of the populace. It's the potential for abuse if the benign view changes to hostile that's the main problem.

LBJ offered, along those lines the following, not an exact quote. Any legislative proposals should be viewed, not so much against that frame of reference thast views the good ends obtained if the law is properly enforced, but rather it should be viewed against the bad ends obtained by it's improper enforcement. By the way, how much are you willing to bet on the "benign view of the populace" that some unknown/future administration might or might not have?

You ended with:
You might gather that I'm more prone to imply stupidity or absence of adequate forethought as to bad legislation than I am "conspiracy" or "wilful deprivation of rights".

I do so gather, and Iam familiar with that line of reasoning. In a great many cases it might be well grounded in fact, however the number of "coincidences" sometimes strikes me as strange. Pardon me for taking a moment to adjust the fit of my tinfoil hat, but didn't the facists say something about "all the trains running on time"?

C96:

Over a period of years, I garnered a few traffic tickets. I was never asked for a finger print. I cannot even recall being asked to sign for the ticket, my signsture merely allowing that I had been ticketed. I paid, every ticket, or at least appeared to contest same, or perhaps to "sing sad songs". Sometimes this worked, sometimes it didn't. I can only speak to personal experience, however if you say that some bad people have gotten a "free ride", perhaps so. Seems as if that is one of the "costs" of living in a "free country".

Possibly I'm overly suspicious. If so, that's my problem, and something that I have to live with. I merely call things as I see them, and if someone else sees them differently, perhaps they are right, and I'm wrong. Perhaps I'm right though.