NC LE using portable fingerprinting units during traffic stops

color of law · Dec 22, 2017

Fallschirmjäger said:
Is it too late to ask "What IS the NC law regarding identification? Is it the same as the NC "Stop and Identify" law... of which there isn't one?

Could someone kindly explain how one isn't 'identified' by merely stating their true name and date of birth as the Supreme Court agreed was sufficient?

Name only, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

color of law · Dec 22, 2017

There is no expectation of privacy as it relates to your fingerprints. You leave them everywhere. But, being forced to provide them without a warrant is unconstitutional.

solus · Dec 22, 2017

Fallschirmjäger said:
Is it too late to ask "What IS the NC law regarding identification? Is it the same as the NC "Stop and Identify" law... of which there isn't one?

Could someone kindly explain how one isn't 'identified' by merely stating their true name and date of birth as the Supreme Court agreed was sufficient?

i will certainly assist in your understanding of your neighbour state's statutes regarding identification while driving a motor vehicle on NC byways...

§ 20-29. Surrender of license.

Any person operating or in charge of a motor vehicle, when requested by an officer in uniform, or, in the event of accident in which the vehicle which he is operating or in charge of shall be involved, when requested by any other person, who shall refuse to write his name for the purpose of identification or to give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of such vehicle, or who shall give a false name or address, or who shall refuse, on demand of such officer or such other person, to produce his license and exhibit same to such officer or such other person for the purpose of examination, or who shall refuse to surrender his license on demand of the Division, or fail to produce same when requested by a court of this State, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. Pickup notices for drivers' licenses or revocation or suspension of license notices and orders or demands issued by the Division for the surrender of such licenses may be served and executed by patrolmen or other peace officers or may be served in accordance with G.S. 20-48. Patrolmen and peace officers, while serving and executing such notices, orders and demands, shall have all the power and authority possessed by peace officers when serving the executing warrants charging violations of the criminal laws of the State. (1935, c. 52, s. 23; 1949, c. 583, s. 7; 1975, c. 716, s. 5; 1979, c. 667, s. 25; 1981, c. 938, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 323; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

WalkingWolf · Dec 22, 2017

color of law said:
There is no expectation of privacy as it relates to your fingerprints. You leave them everywhere. But, being forced to provide them without a warrant is unconstitutional.

I don't agree, thought the courts may later deem it unconstitutional. Hibel dispelled that asking for name to confirm identity did not violate the 4th amendment. Unless I missed something it did not rule out fingerprints, which like facial recognition there is no expectation of privacy. Unless one is in their own abode, and then it would be legal when investigating a crime.

As long as the police are investigating a crime I see no problem. FP are part of a person's identity, just the same as the features on our face.

KBCraig · Dec 23, 2017

Is anyone concerned about this if it's limited to drivers who are operating the vehicle at the time of a traffic stop?

My first reaction was concern about demanding ID and/or fingerprints from passengers, who are not legally seized during a traffic stop.

FreedomLover · Dec 23, 2017

WalkingWolf said:
More than likely a fingerprint will keep an innocent from going to jail rather than being incarcerated. Fingerprints are a physical feature, unless wearing gloves they are present to the public like a face. No invasive procedure is done, no swabbing, no pin *****, it is legal to expect to be ID if stopped. More than likely the gov already has your fingerprints if you have ever worked for them, or those younger their parents submitted copies when younger, a program I don't believe they do anymore. EVERY time a person is stopped for a traffic stop, I mean every time, there is a felony warrant, and records search. Did I say every time, so this is nothing new, if they got a hit I would fully expect them to take every means possible to make sure they have the right person.

Come on people YOU leave fingerprints everywhere you go. I once got the fingerprints from a murderer by picking up the can he drank a beer out of after he pitched it. Normally we would have picked him up, and printed him, but we wanted PC to do a search of his vehicle, and home without alerting him. Actually could have cited him for throwing the beer can out of his truck window. Once we had the prints that matched the murder scene in Missouri we served warrants for everywhere he could have left evidence, including his present GF house. So unless you plan on never touching anything your fingerprints are everywhere you go. If you are suspected of a crime you can be sure the police have them before actually being fingerprinted.

Today if you smoke a cigarette, and pitch it, the police have every legal right to pick it up, and run DNA. But I believe gathering DNA at a traffic stop is too expensive, and would be considered invasive. I get that people are upset about fingerprints being gathered, but it is legal, and no more different than using facial recognition. Which used to take a good amount of time before computers. Officers used to keep a binder with wanted criminals pictures in their car, fingerprints are no different, they are part of making an ID. Which the police have no right to do unless you have committed a crime, or are suspected of committing a crime. And breaking traffic laws in most states IS a crime.

Regarding your first paragraph.... If I ID myself as required by law (very limited circumstances where by law I must present a gov issued id) where does the "nice" officer get the authority to demand MORE than the law requires before I am let loose. No agency policy or procedure wanting or even demanding more than the law requires is Legal. Many states have ID requirements--- IF suspected of being about to commit, actively committing, or have in the past committing a crime one must ID themselves. This is done mostly by the requirement in law to state ones name, city of residence, and date of birth. Nothing about submitting to fingerprinting to comply with some fettish an officer or agency has about using a fancy new tool---- Think of the frequency of late night/early morning no knock warrant use on the non violent pot smoking suspect who per state records happens to have a permit allowing one to conceal a firearm!

FreedomLover · Dec 23, 2017

color of law said:
There is no expectation of privacy as it relates to your fingerprints. You leave them everywhere. But, being forced to provide them without a warrant is unconstitutional.

One could argue there is no expectation of privacy as it relates to ones fingerprints left and abandoned but one has not left or abandoned the prints ON THEIR FINGERS

FreedomLover · Dec 23, 2017

KBCraig said:
Is anyone concerned about this if it's limited to drivers who are operating the vehicle at the time of a traffic stop?

My first reaction was concern about demanding ID and/or fingerprints from passengers, who are not legally seized during a traffic stop.

My concern is the wholesale use of such a tool on everyone--- think of the fiasco in Colorado a year or so ago where every driver was stopped at a specific intersection for the nice officers to conduct a search of each vehicle for a robbery suspect (if I remember correctly). Many persons were significantly delayed and inconvenienced.

BTW--- the nice police had no description of the suspects they were actually looking for or even any info about any vehicle they may or may not have used!

If I present a valid ID/DL to the nice officer at the time I am stopped while operating a vehicle WHERE does the officer get the RAS that the ID presented is not or may not be valid? In the state in which I reside the officers have terminals in the cars allowing them to access the database and display a picture --- IF that picture matches me and the DL associated with the number on the DL they have been presented there is absolutely no justification to make the extralegal demand that I also provide them with fingerprints!

solus · Dec 23, 2017

FreedomLover said:
One could argue there is no expectation of privacy as it relates to ones fingerprints left and abandoned but one has not left or abandoned the prints ON THEIR FINGERS

I believe abandoned personal bio-metric is called evidence which gathered by nice LE investigators ~ after the fact of a criminal event and then used to identify perps or those injured or deceased.

color of law · Dec 23, 2017

WalkingWolf said:
I don't agree, thought the courts may later deem it unconstitutional. Hibel dispelled that asking for name to confirm identity did not violate the 4th amendment. Unless I missed something it did not rule out fingerprints, which like facial recognition there is no expectation of privacy. Unless one is in their own abode, and then it would be legal when investigating a crime.

As long as the police are investigating a crime I see no problem. FP are part of a person's identity, just the same as the features on our face.

You did miss something. Reread Hiibel, it addresses fingerprints citing Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 817 and Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1.

Under Terry a request for information must be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial stop. Terry, 392 U. S., at 20. An officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify him-self if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.

How does giving fingerprints beyond providing a state issued driver license reasonably relate to the traffic stop itself?

WalkingWolf · Dec 23, 2017

color of law said:
You did miss something. Reread Hiibel, it addresses fingerprints citing Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 817 and Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1.

Under Terry a request for information must be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial stop. Terry, 392 U. S., at 20. An officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify him-self if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.

How does giving fingerprints beyond providing a state issued driver license reasonably relate to the traffic stop itself?

A traffic stop is not a Terry stop, there is already PC to a crime, though a minor crime. IT IS an arrest in most states, including NC. A person may be fingerprinted for any arrest, it is part of the identification process. A common stop such as in Terry I believe it is unnecessary, but when there is a clear arrest it is legal.

When committing crimes people should be expected to treated like they committed a crime. Traffic crimes kill more people in this country than any other crime.

OC for ME · Dec 23, 2017

If (when?) the state changes the laws to require finger printing then a finger print is required to be given. Until then the cop has zero authority to demand any form of ID beyond what current state laws demands. Anyone who agrees with this finger printing are focused on what is good for the state and not what is good for each and every citizen.

WalkingWolf · Dec 23, 2017

OC for ME said:
If (when?) the state changes the laws to require finger printing then a finger print is required to be given. Until then the cop has zero authority to demand any form of ID beyond what current state laws demands. Anyone who agrees with this finger printing are focused on what is good for the state and not what is good for each and every citizen.

What is not illegal, is legal. They don't need to make a law. It is up to the courts or the lawmakers to make it illegal.

Fallschirjmäger · Dec 23, 2017

OC for ME said:
If (when?) the state changes the laws to require fingerprinting then a fingerprint is required to be given. Until then the cop has zero authority to demand any form of ID beyond what current state laws demands. Anyone who agrees with this fingerprinting is focused on what is good for the state and not what is good for each and every citizen.

WalkingWolf said:
What is not illegal, is legal. They don't need to make a law. It is up to the courts or the lawmakers to make it illegal.

So, let me get this straight... According to your philosophy, it's perfectly legal for the government or a government agent (police) to make me drink Coca-Cola instead of Pepsi or to put mayonnaise on my french fries until such time as the matter comes before the court and such actions are made illegal??
Perhaps you are mistaking the concept of "limited powers of government" as expressed in the Tenth Amendment?

WalkingWolf · Dec 23, 2017

Fallschirmjäger said:
So, let me get this straight... According to your philosophy, it's perfectly legal for the government or a government agent (police) to make me drink Coca-Cola instead of Pepsi or to put mayonnaise on my french fries until such time as the matter comes before the court and such actions are made illegal??
Perhaps you are mistaking the concept of "limited powers of government" as expressed in the Tenth Amendment?

It is perfectly legal to fingerprint an arrestee. It is that simple, unless NC defines traffic violations not to be crime. If an officer makes an arrest they can use FP to make an identification, it has been done for decades. I could understand the outrage if police were pulling people off the street, but they are not. They are making legitimate arrests for traffic violations, WITH probable cause. It is not a Terry stop, and it is not RAS that is being used. An officer SEES a violation, makes a stop for that violation, the person is under arrest until the officer decides to write a ticket, incarcerate them, or let them go.

Fallschirjmäger · Dec 23, 2017

Right.... so every traffic ticket I've ever gotten since I was 16 is going to show up as an arrest when someone makes an inquiry?

Go ahead and pull the other one.,

WalkingWolf · Dec 23, 2017

Fallschirmjäger said:
Right.... so every traffic ticket I've ever gotten since I was 16 is going to show up as an arrest when someone makes an inquiry?

Go ahead and pull the other one.,

If they do a deep records check? Yes. Most states have a certain amount of time then they come off the data base. Doesn't change what they are.

Fallschirjmäger · Dec 23, 2017

Yeah... I got a ticket for 66 in a 55 the Thanksgiving before last, I have this sneaking suspicion that it won't show up as an arrest.

I want to see the court's reaction when an indigent person is arrested for the crime of forgetting his driving license (a $10 fine in GA) asks for a court-appointed lawyer to which (if I'm not mistaken) he is entitled to if he cannot afford one per Miranda v. State of Arizona

WalkingWolf · Dec 23, 2017

Fallschirmjäger said:
Yeah... I got a ticket for 66 in a 55 the Thanksgiving before last, I have this sneaking suspicion that it won't show up as an arrest.

I want to see the court's reaction when an indigent person is arrested for the crime of forgetting his driving license (a $10 fine in GA) asks for a court-appointed lawyer to which (if I'm not mistaken) he is entitled to if he cannot afford one per Miranda v. State of Arizona

I have a sneaking suspicion it is in the records in the county clerks office, unless it was expunged.

Fallschirjmäger · Dec 24, 2017

WalkingWolf said:
I have a sneaking suspicion it is in the records in the county clerks office, unless it was expunged.

Odd, I was under the impression that arrests were part of the NCIC database. If a traffic stop/ticket is an arrest as claimed, why isn't the arrest and conviction in the national database instead of some random county clerk's office?

NC LE using portable fingerprinting units during traffic stops

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Active member