ConFession of a Former Fingerprint Fence-Sitter

Place holder for longer first post.

TFred

The only reason that I am posting this is that there may be some small chance that there are others who are going through the same thought process that I did.

As most of us know, the CHP law grants localities the authority to require by statute that fingerprints must be submitted with one's first CHP application. It has been published that only about 30% of the localities in Virginia have enacted this requirement. It has been an ongoing effort by the RKBA movement to encourage localities to not require fingerprints, as well as to remove the option at the state level.

With the passage of HB 754 and SB 67 in their respective houses, it appears that the repeal of the fingerprint requirement will be headed to the Governor's desk for signature. I don't know if he has indicated whether or not he intends to sign these bills into law.

Here's the confession: I've always been on the fence about this. You may gasp if you wish.

There is a very good reason for this, namely, that I did not fully understand the role of the fingerprints in the CHP application process.

In my hometown of Fredericksburg, a serial burglar was recently arrested for a series of crimes dating back to September 2011. The City Manager's report indicated that by running the suspect's prints through the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), they were able to connect him to another series of burglaries dating back to Thanksgiving 2010. This identification was made using fingerprints from those earlier crime scenes that had been entered into the "unknown data base of latent impressions" portion of AFIS.

With this recent event in the news, I took the opportunity to correspond with a detective in the local Fredericksburg Police Department on the role that fingerprints play in the CHP process.

What I Used to Think

The concern I had was this: What if Mr. Smart Criminal had committed several or many crimes during which he left latent prints, but had thus far, managed to keep himself from getting caught, and also kept his fingerprints out of "the system", for other purposes such as a security clearance, or in some locations, applying for a CHP. Perhaps Mr. Criminal does not even realize that his latent prints are sitting in AFIS waiting for some day to find a match.

Then Mr. Criminal decides he wants to get a CHP, because after all, he has no record, there should be no reason to deny him one.

My thoughts were that if Mr. Criminal submitted his CHP application with his prints, then boom, AFIS would flag them and Mr. Police Officer would be paying Mr. Criminal a visit to talk things over...

What I Know Now

After my correspondence with the local Detective, I discovered that my thoughts on the role of prints in the CHP process were wrong. I was assured that the "ten prints" used for a CHP application are compared only to the database of known criminals, those who have prior records, and not against the "unknown data base of latent impressions."

I suppose we can debate the wisdom in this, and perhaps the Fourth Amendment implications and statute authority to use or not use that data base, but what I have obviously concluded is this: In this day and age of computer records and the fact that nearly everyone is already "on the grid", the need for fingerprints solely to establish one's identity and prior criminal record is practically none.

At that point, the requirement to submit fingerprints becomes merely an obstacle to RKBA, with no value added, and thus, should be discontinued.

The one valid reason I could think of for submitting prints with a CHP application turns out to not be in play at all.

Hopefully the Governor will sign the bills and this issue disappears for good on July 1, 2012.

Thanks for reading.

TFred

The idea that CHP included fingerprints are necessary to catch BGs or those that should be disqualified just isn't true.
It is a waste of time and money.

Wait, you mean you actually trusted the government to make use out of the data it collects in actually stopping crime (as opposed to collecting taxes)?



Shame on you!

TFred said:

As most of us know, the CHP law grants localities the authority to require by statute that fingerprints must be submitted with one's first CHP application.

Click to expand...

Actually, its by ordinance....but I know, I'm just splitting hairs.

I very much oppose finger printing requirements. It is not only gun registration (that this person likely owns guns) but is registration of people, a record of their "serial number". The purpose of the 2A is NOT personal protection but protection from tyrannical government. If the #*&@ ever does hit the fan and you should be one of those patriots resisting said government and should for some reason leave a fingerprint somewhere they will know who you are. And that will be that for you and most likely a lot of your friends.

The identity of law abiding citizens and the fact they may or may not own guns should NEVER be the business of any right government.

How many kids have been fingerprinted in elementary school as part of an counter-kidnapping program? I remember it was very popular when I was a kid here. Only much, much later did I realize what was really going on there. IIRC, parental consent was required for the "program" and everybody gave it, of course.

MAC702 said:

How many kids have been fingerprinted in elementary school as part of an counter-kidnapping program? I remember it was very popular when I was a kid here. Only much, much later did I realize what was really going on there. IIRC, parental consent was required for the "program" and everybody gave it, of course.

Click to expand...

The last time I ever paid attention to any details, they were taking the prints on a card, and giving the card to the parents. No adding to "the system" of any kind. That would seem fine to me, parents could file away in a safe place, hopefully never to be needed, but there in case.

TFred

You know, I can't remember for a certainty now if that was how it was or not. I might just be fear-mongering, sorry...

TFred said:

The only reason that I am posting this is that there may be some small chance that there are others who are going through the same thought process that I did.

. . .

After my correspondence with the local Detective, I discovered that my thoughts on the role of prints in the CHP process were wrong. I was assured that the "ten prints" used for a CHP application are compared only to the database of known criminals, those who have prior records, and not against the "unknown data base of latent impressions."

. . .

TFred

Click to expand...

Um, no, once the prints are in the system, they stay for 99 years and US, state, local, and probabaly international police have access to them for investigations. Usually, one hopes, the prints help catch bad guys.

Sometimes, the authorities abuse their power and wrongfully accuse the innocent of being a criminal or terrorist. See http://forejustice.org/wc/mayfield/jd/brandon_mayfield_jd_issue25.htm

Mike said:

Um, no, once the prints are in the system, they stay for 99 years and US, state, local, and probabaly international police have access to them for investigations. Usually, one hopes, the prints help catch bad guys.

Sometimes, the authorities abuse their power and wrongfully accuse the innocent of being a criminal or terrorist. See http://forejustice.org/wc/mayfield/jd/brandon_mayfield_jd_issue25.htm

Click to expand...

Are you stating that if I leave prints at the scene of a burglary, then some time later apply for a CHP (assuming that they leave the requirement in place) that I will be caught?

That would directly contradict what the detective told me, and I would appreciate any source reference to that assertion that you might be able to dig up.

TFred

No chance of escape

Between the 30 years of military security clearences and civillian jobs in Law Enforcement and private security, I have ZERO chance of my prints NOT being on multiple systems.

If I were ever to become a criminal, I would have to always wear gloves.

Hell, I know I even have a DNC sample in the system.

Guess I better not become a criminal.

MAC702 said:

How many kids have been fingerprinted in elementary school as part of an counter-kidnapping program? I remember it was very popular when I was a kid here. Only much, much later did I realize what was really going on there. IIRC, parental consent was required for the "program" and everybody gave it, of course.

Click to expand...

The finger-print programs in my area the prints were given to the parents to keep and were never entered into a data base.

Hmmm. One part of me says prints should be checked against all databases. The other part of me says a CHP application shouldn't be a crimefighting tool. I'm surprised they don't take prints when we vote. Wait, that's a civil rights issue. My bad.

paramedic70002 said:

Hmmm. One part of me says prints should be checked against all databases. The other part of me says a CHP application shouldn't be a crimefighting tool. I'm surprised they don't take prints when we vote. Wait, that's a civil rights issue. My bad.

Click to expand...

I suspect that the Fourth Amendment kicks in here somewhere. If they take prints which are voluntarily given for one specific purpose and use them for a completely different purpose without my permission, that would seem to violate the prohibition against reasonable searches.

One section of code that I think we tend to overlook is 15.2-915.3, which spells out a little more clearly the defined purpose for which a locality may require the fingerprinting for CHPs:



That tells me that they are only authorized to use the prints to search for a past record, not for unsolved crimes.

TFred

TFred said:

I suspect that the Fourth Amendment kicks in here somewhere. If they take prints which are voluntarily given for one specific purpose and use them for a completely different purpose without my permission, that would seem to violate the prohibition against reasonable searches.

One section of code that I think we tend to overlook is 15.2-915.3, which spells out a little more clearly the defined purpose for which a locality may require the fingerprinting for CHPs:

§ 15.2-915.3. Requiring fingerprinting for concealed handgun permit.

Notwithstanding § 15.2-915, a county or city may by ordinance require any applicant for a concealed handgun permit to submit to fingerprinting for the purpose of obtaining the applicant's state or national criminal history record; however, such ordinance shall not require fingerprinting for the renewal of an existing permit pursuant to subsection I of § 18.2-308.​

That tells me that they are only authorized to use the prints to search for a past record, not for unsolved crimes.

TFred

Click to expand...

Why would they need your fingerprints for that? In case you had your name changed or something? Seems your name and SSN or DL should be enough to ID you.

TFred said:

That would directly contradict what the detective told me . . . .

TFred

Click to expand...

And, we ALL know that govt employees such as a detective are never known to blow hot air out the rectum area, OR be flat out wrong about something. C'mon, remember our founders told us to never fully trust our govt, right? Especially here on OCDO.

va_tazdad said:

Between the 30 years of military security clearences and civillian jobs in Law Enforcement and private security, I have ZERO chance of my prints NOT being on multiple systems.

If I were ever to become a criminal, I would have to always wear gloves.

Hell, I know I even have a DNC sample in the system.

Guess I better not become a criminal.

Click to expand...

+1,000,000!! Being Ex-Military AND having just completed the DCJS requirements for Electronic Security, my prints are definitely "in the system". That being said, I don't see the need to fill out some form and have them taken again to be able to exercise a right!!

va_tazdad said:

Between the 30 years of military security clearences and civillian jobs in Law Enforcement and private security, I have ZERO chance of my prints NOT being on multiple systems.

If I were ever to become a criminal, I would have to always wear gloves.

Hell, I know I even have a DNC sample in the system.

Guess I better not become a criminal.

Click to expand...

Similar situation with me...military clearances, fingerprinting, worked for the VAMC for a while (same gamut there), also worked in and retired from public school system where we scanned our index fingers each morning when clocking in, as well as when clocking out.

I think I'll continue on the path of righteous living and stay off the paths of lawlessness and crime. :dude:

Notwithstanding this is an open carry forum, so forgive the reference to the cc statute...

And, acknowledging OVJ comment about 'agencies' actually doing what they want with fingerprints collected for chp background checks...

18.2-308(D) states:
"...As a condition for issuance of a concealed handgun permit, the applicant shall submit to fingerprinting if required by local ordinance in the county or city where the applicant resides and provide personal descriptive information to be forwarded with the fingerprints through the Central Criminal Records Exchange to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of obtaining criminal history record information regarding the applicant, and obtaining fingerprint identification information from federal records pursuant to criminal investigations by state and local law-enforcement agencies. However, no local ordinance shall require an applicant to submit to fingerprinting if the applicant has an existing concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this section and is applying for a new five-year permit pursuant to subsection I. Where feasible and practical, the local law-enforcement agency may transfer information electronically to the State Police instead of inked fingerprint cards. Upon completion of the criminal history records check, the State Police shall return the fingerprint cards to the submitting local agency or, in the case of scanned fingerprints, destroy the electronic record. The local agency shall then promptly notify the person that he has 21 days from the date of the notice to request return of the fingerprint cards, if any. All fingerprint cards not claimed by the applicant within 21 days of notification by the local agency shall be destroyed. All optically scanned fingerprints shall be destroyed upon completion of the criminal history records check without requiring that the applicant be notified. Fingerprints taken for the purposes described in this section shall not be copied, held or used for any other purposes...."

FWIW.