Police Begin Fingerprinting on Traffic Stops

[LawDog]

He might not end up with, as you say, a criminal record (I'll let Lawdog explain for sure, but I imagine he was just being less than clear in his terminology), but he certainly will end up with arrest warrants.

Friend of mine named Jim went to buy a gun back when the Brady Bill first went into effect. Imagien his surprise when the clerk came out of the back and informed Jim that he was denied purchase of the gun because of Jim's criminal record.

Massive bloody surprise there, I'm here to tell you. Anyhoo, once the dust settled, it turned out that a classmate of ours had been arrested and convicted on multiple burglary counts, couple of drug charges, felonies out the yin-yang.

The kicker here? Everytime he was arrested, he gave the police Jim's name, date-of-birth and SSN.

That started a nightmare for Jim that lasted a decade or so.

Folks, for God's sake get a document shredder. They aren't that expensive. Anything you throw away that has your name on it (or any sort of personal ID info) needs to be shredded.

Criminal Identity Theft is bad now. It's going to get worse. Don't wind up caught in the machinery, okay?

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs17g-CrimIdTheft.htm

LawDog

 

[secamp32]

Sergeant Bob

Those fingerprint scanners for computers don't record the finger print. They make digital signature based on the properties of the finger. It won't scan it like the fingerprint scanners used by LE agencies to create print cards.

 

[secamp32]

Maybe we can tie the in patrol car computer

in to the DNA bank. This way went we do a traffic stop we also swap your dna, stick it in the computer and bing, we know exactly who you are. Or we can scan the rfid chip that everyone will soon have implanted in your neck. uh oh my tinfoil hat is getting loose again.

 

[Orthonym]

That would be a Mu Metal hat,secamp!

Ain't you never read Stephen Den Beste?

Oh, BTW, if yer sig means you actually own a Seecamp .32, I am green with envy!

 

[OpenRoad]

What a surprise. Another "problem" the government creates and then offers up the solution in the form of more police state.

The government already has my fingerprints on file for an old misdemeanor over a check overdraft a few years back and for when I got my CCW. Pretty soon the whole population is going to be fingerprinting and piss testing to keep their jobs or to go someplace. Nevermind, we're already at that point.

 

[Coronach]

What a surprise. Another "problem" the government creates and then offers up the solution in the form of more police state.

Please read my last post, and LawDog's multiple entries.

We're not making this up. This happens. Heck, if you take the cynical POV, this doesn't "help me do my job" at all. It doesn't "make my job easier." If I'm just out to make my life easier at the expense of everyone's liberties, I just keep on keeping on. I stop the car. I issue the ticket. It doesn't matter to me if this guy shows up in court, has a warrant issued, is the right guy or the wrong guy, or if he never shows up at all. This happens infrequently enough that it will cost more to set up and operate than it will ever make in "revenue generation", if you subscribe to that logic.

However, if you do care about making sure that you're not lining up an innocent man for a trip to jail, this matters. This matters a lot. And while I am leery of the idea of taking prints, too, I am also aware that I (at least once) very nearly took an innocent guy to jail. If you can think of a better, less invasive, less Big-Brotherish way of making sure the guy I send off with a ticket or summons is, in fact, the same guy listed on that ticket or summons, I bloody well want to hear it.

Otherwise, your answer to this question:

Should the police fingerprint you as a matter of routine if you get stopped in your car? No? Well, should they take you to jail if you forget your DL? No? Should they just stop enforcing traffic laws altogether? No? Should they just accept that they will sometimes give innocent people a ride to jail and be happy with it? No?

is that you're cool with jamming up an innocent man.

And repeating the mantra that "the goverment is making up a problem!" isn't going to change the fact that it is a real problem, the government isn't making it up, and innocent people can and are going to jail because of it. Yeah, it all gets sorted out at the end (hopefully), but it takes a toll in time, money and human dignity.

Mike

 

[赤悪魔]

Cool. I want this bad. Many Banks require a thumbprint for check cashing purposes and no one complains. Also fewer tickets and other charges would be tossed out on technicalities on average; this is another way to validate the officers reporting practices.

If you want to keep you identity private form law enforcement you fighting the wrong battle. Your busted John Doe, and you can sit in that cell until you have been identified. If you are truly concerned, burn down you prints withh acid

 

[GhostRider-Nine]

Should they just stop enforcing traffic laws altogether?

Well if comes down to a choice of my rights and freedoms, or having a cop chase someone down at high speed for not having a seatbelt on, I'll take my freedoms anyday. BTW, the sealbeat thing happened in GA. High speed chase ending in the guy flipping his car and ending up with a broken neck and in a wheel chair, all over him not wearing a seatbelt. Now THERE is a REAL criminal. True, he should not have tried running from the cops over a seatbelt, but give me a break. Risking life and limb over this?

 

[GhostRider-Nine]

BTW, is your average road cop going to do the fingerprinting properly? It seems to me that it is something that if not done right is completely useless. Ohh I know, the next time a cop pulls up behind me and routinely runs my plate, he will get a notice that the last time I was pulled over, my print turned out blurry and needs to be re-done. On come the red lights. :banghead:

 

[flatrock]

Lawdog,

If the system works some good could definately come from it. However since the print if voluntary, why would a criminal who is trying to give a false identity provide a print, when it may be able to be used to properly identify them once the person who's identity they are using proclaims their innocence?

Criminals really have no reason to participate. Therefore all you're really collecting are the prints of honest people who have committed a minor traffic violation.

At the same time you lump those who want their rights protected with those that are criminals, because those are the troublesome people that refuse to participate.

If the program fails to produce the desired results do you think the people pushing it will scrap it, or push to make it mandatory to give your print?

 

[bigjim]

You can have my finger prints when you lift them from my cold dead fingers.

 

[C96]

Mike and Lawdog I thank you for your explanations of what is going on out there
and the need for some of this stuff. I guess some folks will not understand until
they get jammed by JoeScumbag. They will still be crying but the song will have
changed.

allan

 

[tomlj75]

I thought it was supposed to be inocent till proven guilty?

 

[R.H. Lee]

I think LawDog's advice is well considered. He's talking about using fingerprints to eliminate mistakes and wrongful detention. Look up 'exculpatory'. You libertarian types can quote your pie in the sky platitudes til the cows come home and it won't change reality one bit. I, for one, shred everything before it goes in the trash. You should do the same.

 

[Monkeyleg]

tomlj75, it is. However, at what cost to you if you're taken into custody?

I've been mulling over LawDog's and others replies, and have come to conclude that it's something that you either consent to or run the risk of going to court to prove your innocence.

BTW, my wife was robbed on her way home from the courthouse many years back. They got her drivers license, social security card, and her birth certificate, which she had to bring to the courthouse.

Somewhere out there is a criminal or illegal with the same identity as my wife.

 

[Gordon Fink]

If the criminal refuses to voluntarily provide the exculpatory evidence, how exactly will I be exculpated? Oh, we’ll just make it mandatory.…

~G. Fink

 

[R.H. Lee]

You provide the exculpatory evidence, Gordon, not the criminal. Unless I missed your point.

 

[LawDog]

Criminals really have no reason to participate.

To the contrary, critters have every reason to participate.

Just by handing me a false ID, they've gone from a class 'C' to a class 'B'(180 days in County lock-up/$3000 fine) or as far as a felony.

As soon as I have a paw-full of bad ID, the only thing standing between that critter and an immediate trip to jail is the 'suspicious bastard' node in my think box.

So. He will be the very picture of co-operation, jolliness and manly understanding. Anything he can do to convince me that All Is Well and There Ain't Nothing Here To Get Suspicious About, he'll do. He wants our interaction over and done with ASAFP, so he can get his felony evidence out of my hands and his little butt out of my sight. Signature? You betcha. Index print? Of course, can't be too careful these days (comradely chuckle).

It's the same principal that causes a guy with a trunk load of pot to say, "Go ahead, officer." when I ask him if he minds if I take a look.

LawDog

 

[GhostRider-Nine]

I could tolerate this just a little better if it were done like this.....excuse me sir, we have a problem. There is a warrant out for your arrest. Would you be willing to give me your thumbprint to be sure you are the person the warrant was issued for? If not, we will have to sort this out at the station.....Now wouldn't this be better than just fingerprinting everyone?

 

[alan]

Notwithstand any of the previous theorizing or arguing, the following comes to my mind regarding this fingerprinting business.

1. It's a really stupid idea for it serves only to widen the gulf between US the law abiding majority, and THEM, the forces of Law and Order, who are in the minority. I submit that NOTHING that achieves such ends is a good idea, it certainly is not a smart idea.
2. I also submit that absent the cooperation of the law abiding majority, the police will have an especially difficult time doing their job. Isn't it a real shame to run the not inconsiderable risk of loosing cooperation of the law abiding, such as might still exist, over some silly idea such as fingerprinting recipients of traffic tickets? It most certainly seems so to me, but then what do I know?
3. Neither the private individual nor the police officer is perfect, though some would claim otherwise. It seems especially unfortunate, that some, who never would be otherwise trusted with a dimes worth of authority, sometimes enter Law Enforcement, where they act as if they magically become the rulers of the people, rather than the servants thereof. Isn't it also especially sad that the courts even sometimes seem to support such contentions?
4. So Mr. Petty Authoritarian, go ahead and play rough house with the citizenry. You might get away with it for a while, however in the event that you really need the cooperation and help of those who you looked down on, of those who you pushed around, via the force of a set of work clothes you happened to wear, do not be surprised when there comes to be nothing left, for it was you, who pissed on the livingroom carpet once to often.
5. I'm certain that there some in Law Enforcement or police work who reading the foregoing, might take umbrage. I intended no offense to those who do a difficult job properly, rather I directed my comments toward those "on the job", who shouldn't be, and I suppose that the good people know who the bad ones are.

 

[Coronach]

I could tolerate this just a little better if it were done like this.....excuse me sir, we have a problem. There is a warrant out for your arrest. Would you be willing to give me your thumbprint to be sure you are the person the warrant was issued for? If not, we will have to sort this out at the station.....Now wouldn't this be better than just fingerprinting everyone?

So...you're advocating having everyone's prints on file, so that this can be checked against them?

Wow. Talk about invasive.

Needless to say, when warrants are placed on file, you don't know what the wanted person's prints are. You get them when you arrest him. By getting the thumbprint of the person when issuing the ticket, you can at least compare that to the print taken from someone arrested for the warrant. If they match, they match. If they don't, the innocent guy gets released.

The system you suggest is, essentially, what is done now (its not done in the field, but believe me, when you run the prints at the station and they don't match, you release the poor guy). The problem is that most people actually don't have their prints on file to be compared against. This system ensures that the ticketed party does have prints on file for comparison.

Mike

 

[Coronach]

Alan, Law Dog and myself agree that the fingerprinting is...just...uncomfortable. However, does it really do anything to NARROW the gap between LE and you when you get pulled over and the officer arrests you, because someone gave your information falsely in a previous incident? I mean, do you feel better knowing that the scumbag who just got you jammed up didn't have to cough up his prints?

That's a very real choice. Print the offenders, or risk taking innocents to jail. Its not an easy choice.

Mike

 

[GhostRider-Nine]

So...you're advocating having everyone's prints on file, so that this can be checked against them?

I said I would tolerate it a little better. My point is that everyone should not be fingerprinted, or even ask to be fingerprinted as a matter of course. Voluntary is the key word....and make it known that it is voluntary. In my case I have already been fingerprinted, (CCW) so it would do no harm having it done again. (Hell, you can't even get a license in the commie hell hole I live in without giving up your thumbprint.) And if it were down to the choice of getting it cleared up along side the road, or going to jail, the roadside would win. Now if I had never been fingerprinted before, they would not get one from me. I would let the lawyer sort it out down at the station....my choice, and voluntary.

 

[Coronach]

I said I would tolerate it a little better. My point is that everyone should not be fingerprinted, or even ask to be fingerprinted as a matter of course.

So, I'm confused. How would the police have the prints of everyone on file for comparative purposes if, as you say, "everyone should not be fingerprinted"?

Mike

 

[GhostRider-Nine]

You are missing my point. What I'm trying to say is that if there was a possibility that it would help someone (such as someone whos prints were already on file) not getting hauled in, it would be a good thing....as long as it was made clear it was voluntary. If it were to be used as a part of a system to get everyones prints, then I say "dirty word" NO.