• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NC LE using portable fingerprinting units during traffic stops

FreedomLover

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
35
Location
Crust of Earth
Do you realize YOU just justified the use of fingerprinting...

I see I missed one word in my SARCASM you've quoted above------- add "MALICIOUSLY" before "misidentified" with intent to apply to the series following!

As to your statement stating that those who don't break the law will never be fingerprinted per this policy... I say COW DROPPINGS!


It seems the negative implication contained in the phrase OEO or Opinion Enforcement Officer was missed!
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I see I missed one word in my SARCASM you've quoted above------- add "MALICIOUSLY" before "misidentified" with intent to apply to the series following!

As to your statement stating that those who don't break the law will never be fingerprinted per this policy... I say COW DROPPINGS!


It seems the negative implication contained in the phrase OEO or Opinion Enforcement Officer was missed!

The majority of traffic stops is because there is an infraction, while there may be a slim margin of bad officers the whole do not just go around stopping law abiding citizens. Besides if you live in a state where they do it, you are just going to have to get over it, or go to jail, and get fingerprinted anyway. Whether you like it, or not, it is legal, and constitutional.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
NC Statute
§ 15A-502. Photographs and fingerprints.
(a) A person charged with the commission of a felony or a misdemeanor may be photographed and his fingerprints may be taken for law-enforcement records only when he has been:

...

(b) This section does not authorize the taking of photographs or fingerprints when the offense charged is a Class 2 or 3 misdemeanor under Chapter 20 of the General Statutes, "Motor Vehicles." Notwithstanding the prohibition in this subsection, a photograph may be taken of a person who operates a motor vehicle on a street or highway if:
(1) The person is cited by a law enforcement officer for a motor vehicle moving violation, and
(2) The person does not produce a valid drivers license upon the request of a law enforcement officer, and
(3) The law enforcement officer has a reasonable suspicion concerning the true identity of the person.
As used in this subsection, the phrase "motor vehicle moving violation" does not include the offenses listed in the third paragraph of G.S. 20-16(c) for which no points are assessed, nor does it include equipment violations specified in Part 9 of Article 3 of Chapter 20 of the General Statutes.

...
If a valid drivers license is produced for a moving violation fingerprinting is not authorized...it appears.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
More questions need to be asked of LE officials in NC and data produced to indicate when and under what circumstances fingerprinting was deemed appropriate by that cop.

It is possible that each incident was done as § 15A-502. Photographs and fingerprints proscribes. But, if even one incident occurred contrary to § 15A-502 then that cop must be fired and his supervisors severely punished. Officer safety must not be the "get out of jail free" card used without clear justification under the applicable laws of the state. In other words, a cop just stating it is not, and must not be, good enough.

Do not accept their word that biometric data is not retained.

Consequences of the most severe nature must be in place if even one set of fingerprints is found to have been retained even for a brief amount of time even if the fingerprints were taken contrary to § 15A-502.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
And then at the bottom of the statute it is directly contradicted, everything in a interaction with a police officer is used for evidence.

(d) This section does not prevent the taking of photographs, moving pictures, video or sound recordings, fingerprints, or the like to show a condition of intoxication or for other evidentiary use.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
And then at the bottom of the statute it is directly contradicted, everything in a interaction with a police officer is used for evidence.

(d) This section does not prevent the taking of photographs, moving pictures, video or sound recordings, fingerprints, or the like to show a condition of intoxication or for other evidentiary use.


... and the fingerprints are evidence of what crime?
One may note that the other items listed such as video, sound, moving pictures, or photographs can easily be used as evidence of intoxication, but what does the collection of fingerprints from someone not accused of a crime provide evidence of?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
... and the fingerprints are evidence of what crime?
One may note that the other items listed such as video, sound, moving pictures, or photographs can easily be used as evidence of intoxication, but what does the collection of fingerprints from someone not accused of a crime provide evidence of?

Fingerprints are evidence of identity, which is major part of any trial, usually it is the first thing established in any trial. If the ID is flubbed in the trial no matter how bad the crime is, it is out the door.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Fingerprints are evidence of identity, which is a major part of any trial, usually it is the first thing established in any trial. If the ID is flubbed in the trial no matter how bad the crime is, it is out the door.
Exactly, not a shred of evidence related to a crime involved. So, I must ask, If it's not evidence, nor supports the evidence of a crime, why is it being collected?

One might just as well postulate that the police have the right and authority to demand persons stopped for speeding or other traffic offenses provide a poop sample (since there is no law to the contrary).
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Exactly, not a shred of evidence related to a crime involved. So, I must ask, If it's not evidence, nor supports the evidence of a crime, why is it being collected?

One might just as well postulate that the police have the right and authority to demand persons stopped for speeding or other traffic offenses provide a poop sample (since there is no law to the contrary).

There are the four W's on every case that has to be established in court Who, What, Where, When. The other three do not matter without Who. Identity is evidence, otherwise nothing you own belongs to you, because a nothing cannot own anything.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
And then at the bottom of the statute it is directly contradicted, everything in a interaction with a police officer is used for evidence.

(d) This section does not prevent the taking of photographs, moving pictures, video or sound recordings, fingerprints, or the like to show a condition of intoxication or for other evidentiary use.
The "or for other evidentiary use" has "to show a condition of intoxication."
See State v. Wilson, 250 SE 2d 621 - NC: Supreme Court (1979)
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
What evidence does a set of fingerprints provide beyond the "evidence" from a radar gun (or eye balls) for a moving violation.

I can clearly read the legislature's intent in both (b) and (d).
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Fingerprints are evidence of identity, which is major part of any trial, usually it is the first thing established in any trial. If the ID is flubbed in the trial no matter how bad the crime is, it is out the door.
That is not what the NC statute indicates. If a valid DL is provided a fingerprinting is not authorized.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The taking of fingerprints is not permitted for motor vehicle violations per 15a-502.

Focusing on (d) "...or for other evidentiary use" is a misapplication of this clause where 15a-502 violations are concerned.

A valid DL meets the identification requirements for a motor vehicle moving violation in NC, until now that is.

Your fingerprint is not evidence of the observed "crime" of doing 30mph in a 25mph zone. Your fingerprint is not evidence of the "crime" of a burnt out license plate lamp. In fact, your fingerprint is only evidence of your presence at the scene of a alleged crime. Where as you driving your car and getting pulled over for that burnt out lamp.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
And, lets not forget what section (b) says:
(b) This section does not authorize the taking of photographs or fingerprints when the offense charged is a misdemeanor under Chapter 20 of the General Statutes, "Motor Vehicles," for which the penalty authorized does not exceed a fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00), imprisonment for six months, or both.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
And, lets not forget what section (b) says:(b) This section does not authorize the taking of photographs or fingerprints when the offense charged is a misdemeanor under Chapter 20 of the General Statutes, "Motor Vehicles," for which the penalty authorized does not exceed a fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00), imprisonment for six months, or both.

That illustrates the problem some people have when they read one sub-section of a law and don't see how it relates to the rest of the code.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Some in NC LE, that SBI fella in particular, use that clause as justification until a judge rules them as abusing their state granted powers and violating the law. Typical of the LE bigwigs not giving a rat’s rear end about the citizenry or the cops on the beat. Especially easy for them when criminal sanctions are not a concern for their arrogance and lawlessness.
 
Top