I can't respond to any of that, as I am not in your line of work. However, I don't associate with people who would claim to be me nor do I loan my car or borrow someone else's car. Therefore, if I am pulled over for a minor traffic violation, the officer could ask a few questions at that time to better ascertain if I am who I say I am, rather than asking for me to submit my fingerprint.
Well, some people do associate with those sorts, and while one can easily say (believe me, cops often say) that laying down with dogs will give you fleas, it is a whole other kettle o fish when laying down with dogs gets you dropkicked into the lost land of pre-arraignment detention. Also, many a good person is startled to learn that some of his friends and associates are less savory than they seem, or that their old bud from high school has developed an Oxycontin habit and is juuuuuuuuuuust about to stumble over the line that seperates a functional addict from a dysfunctional one.
My point is that, in a general sense, you never know who might end up trying to jam you up. It could be the perp who got your 411 from the dump. It could be your erstwhile friend (or, more likely, your friend's friend). This makes a requirement for absolute certainty of who is who rather important.
It is only the principle of being printed for a minor traffic violation that I have a problem with.
Frankly? So do I. Have we come this far? Regretfully, it seems that we have.
Firethorn:
Think about it. Back in the 1700's, if they arrested somebody for a crime, the available evidence wasn't very much. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a far tougher standard today than it was two hundred years ago.
That's utterly a good thing. This, actually, is an outgrowth of the public's demand for certainty in such things as curtailing one's liberty. I find it ironic that a department is going above and beyond the call (possibly too far above and beyond the call, I will allow) to make sure that the people they are dragging off to jail are the right people, and is running afoul of the civil libertarians. They would have been better off, PR-wise, just taking a dozen innocent people to jail each year, as sad as that sounds.
Gordon Fink:
Well, in California, if you get stopped without license, registration, or proof of insurance, your car can be impounded.
Ponder, for a moment, the difference between a car being possibly impounded (but the driver being free), and a man being taken to jail (and his vehicle definately being impounded).
We are all printed when we apply for the license, so the argument is moot here.
Uh. Explain to me how this makes the point moot. I am beginning to think that you are soldiering on under some extraordinarily wrong assumptions, or are simply not reading what is written. Allow me to attempt to disabuse you of these misconceptions, one last time.
You, Gordon Fink, lose your identity in some manner. It matters not how. Someone you know has decided to impersonate you, or your computer was hacked, or someone at a company with which you have business has lifted your 411 and sold it to someone else. Regardless, despite all of your precautions, your 411 has fallen into the hands of Joe Scumbag.
Joe Scumbag has gotten pulled over, and feigns not having his license. "However, officer, I can give you all of my info. My name is Gordon Fink, I live at 987 The High Road, Someplace California. My SSN is 123-45-6789." The police officer tries to trip up Joe Scumbag, using all of the questions and ideas that Stringj can imagine (and a dozen more), but Joe Scumbag has been doing this for a long time. He's good at it. He might be driving his own vehicle, or he could be driving someone else's...it doesn't matter, as the law does not bar you from driving someone else's car. So, the officer issues a ticket to Mr. Gordon Fink. There is no silly, police state talk of fingerprints. This is America! Let the jack booted thugs and socialist intellectual parasites run amok in Europe, we're better than that. So, Joe Scumbag takes his ticket for Gordon Fink, shoves it in his pocket, sincerely wishes the officer a good day, and drives off into the sunset.
Fast forward a few weeks. Gordon Fink has failed to appear for his trial. Bench warrant issued.
Fast forward a few more weeks. Lawdog spots Gordon Fink (the real Gordon Fink) driving with his muffler dragging on the ground. Lawdog stops him, discovers that there is a warrant for his arrest, and takes him into custody. Subsequent fingerprint checks reveal that, yup, the Gordon Fink in Lawdog's cuffs is, in fact, the same Gordon Fink that applied for his CA driver's license a few years back. Off to the pokey with you, sirrah.
So. Now. How did having your prints on file with the BMV in the first place make this argument moot? The issue is not whether you are printed before or after the incident...
the issue is whether or not the actual person accused of the traffic offense is printed, at the time of the stop. Does this help clear things up? We can debate the propriety of doing this all day long (I'm torn, myself), but your responses indicate that you do not fully understand the basic facts of the issue.
Mike
