ConFession of a Former Fingerprint Fence-Sitter

TFred · Feb 14, 2012

Neplusultra said:
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.

Yes the biggest concern that I've heard expressed in favor of keeping a fingerprint requirement is for when applicants use fake names in an attempt to hide their criminal past. This begs the next logical question: What happens if a background check (without fingerprints) returns absolutely nothing. No records, no past, no history, completely off the grid. That would tell me it's a fake name in today's computerized world. Even Peter Nap has to have a record or two floating around somewhere out there. I would think that an overall high correlation of collected data would be a good indicator that the information provided is accurate and the applicant is who they say they are. If someone is absolutely "not out there", I think I'd want to find out why before giving them any government licenses at all.

Old Virginia Joe said:
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.

Except... the point the detective was making was in support of the declining need for fingerprints, not that we should still require them. He said that the prints are only used to confirm criminal records, which are easily discovered through other means now. If he were trying to "blow hot air out the rectum area," then his information would have instead supported a need for fingerprints that could not be satisfied by other means.

TFred

TFred · Feb 14, 2012

mk4 said:
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.

The problem is that Virginia State Law can't really force the FBI to comply with any destruction requirements.

TFred

mk4 · Feb 14, 2012

TFred said:
The problem is that Virginia State Law can't really force the FBI to comply with any destruction requirements.

TFred

Exactly why I ack'ed OVJ's comment. ;-)

I was just citing the statute, should *any* agencies be inclined to play by the rules.

Mike · Feb 14, 2012

TFred said:
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

Once a person's prints are in the FBI system, they will show a match if an agency requests that the prints be run.

So in your hypothetical, if the police tried a second time to run the burglery scene prints, after the CHP applicant-burgler submited his prints to the FBI, then if all goes well with the fingerprint matchng software, then he would be identified and the evidence might lead to a subsequent investigation, prosecution, and conviction.

Grapeshot · Feb 14, 2012

A lot hangs on human verification of fingerprints. That can and does go wrong sometimes - sometimes very wrong.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20040607&slug=fingerprint07m

sawah · Feb 14, 2012

Grapeshot said:
A lot hangs on human verification of fingerprints. That can and does go wrong sometimes - sometimes very wrong.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20040607&slug=fingerprint07m

Great article and worth wading through. Unlike what you see on CSI there are no computers which make a 'photo-replicated' match and start flashing at a positive ID. It still takes a human and they have to get a certain number of points that match - usually 16 points in the UK.

http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/Buckley_UK.html

TFred · Feb 14, 2012

Mike said:
Once a person's prints are in the FBI system, they will show a match if an agency requests that the prints be run.

So in your hypothetical, if the police tried a second time to run the burglery scene prints, after the CHP applicant-burgler submited his prints to the FBI, then if all goes well with the fingerprint matchng software, then he would be identified and the evidence might lead to a subsequent investigation, prosecution, and conviction.

Now that is a scenario I can totally believe. But it would seem to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to use the prints of non-criminals in such a comparison without RAS for a particular person's prints.

It would be interesting to know if this has actually happened. Of course, once an identification has been made with an illegal search/comparison, increased scrutiny for no "apparent" reason will certainly yield RAS for an above-board search, eventually.

TFred

Old Virginia Joe · Feb 15, 2012

TFred said:
Except... the point the detective was making was in support of the declining need for fingerprints, not that we should still require them. He said that the prints are only used to confirm criminal records, which are easily discovered through other means now. If he were trying to "blow hot air out the rectum area," then his information would have instead supported a need for fingerprints that could not be satisfied by other means.

TFred

Be careful here. On OCDO, I had hoped WE search for the TRUTH, whether it supports our cause or not. If all we do is embrace the evidence that HELPS us, and ignore the rest, then we are no different than the libtards on the anti-side! You offered evidence presented out of the mouth of a single, un-named govt employee, and you expected and encouraged us to take that tiny piece of offered evidence and base an argument on it. You assumed because what he said, we could like, that it must be true. I'm not User, but I would never advise anyone to base a defense on what a single person believes about anything. For me, that is not a ledge I would stand on. See what I mean?

TFred · Feb 15, 2012

Old Virginia Joe said:
Be careful here. On OCDO, I had hoped WE search for the TRUTH, whether it supports our cause or not. If all we do is embrace the evidence that HELPS us, and ignore the rest, then we are no different than the libtards on the anti-side! You offered evidence presented out of the mouth of a single, un-named govt employee, and you expected and encouraged us to take that tiny piece of offered evidence and base an argument on it. You assumed because what he said, we could like, that it must be true. I'm not User, but I would never advise anyone to base a defense on what a single person believes about anything. For me, that is not a ledge I would stand on. See what I mean?

I agree with the concept of your post. This has not been a 10 minute quest. I've talked to many different people who were supposedly "in the know" over many months, and this particular detective impressed me as being the most straightforward in his assessment. We corresponded several times to clarify exactly what he meant by what he said. Part of the reason I place high confidence in his information was that he also shared with me that he personally believes that it is overall "better for society as a whole" to require fingerprints for every CHP applicant. But in spite of his personal belief, he carefully detailed for me the reasons why fingerprints are fairly limited in the value they add to the process. That tells me he has a certain level of integrity.

Ultimately, how can any of us know "for sure" what is going on inside our LEO organizations? We cannot. If you can find any evidence to either support or refute what I have shared from the detective, believe me, I would be most anxious to hear about it.

TFred

Old Virginia Joe · Feb 15, 2012

TFred said:
I agree with the concept of your post. This has not been a 10 minute quest. I've talked to many different people who were supposedly "in the know" over many months, and this particular detective impressed me as being the most straightforward in his assessment. We corresponded several times to clarify exactly what he meant by what he said. Part of the reason I place high confidence in his information was that he also shared with me that he personally believes that it is overall "better for society as a whole" to require fingerprints for every CHP applicant. But in spite of his personal belief, he carefully detailed for me the reasons why fingerprints are fairly limited in the value they add to the process. That tells me he has a certain level of integrity.

Ultimately, how can any of us know "for sure" what is going on inside our LEO organizations? We cannot. If you can find any evidence to either support or refute what I have shared from the detective, believe me, I would be most anxious to hear about it.

TFred

Given all that new info, I'm with you moreso now. Thanks.
OVJ

swinokur · Feb 16, 2012

It is my understanding that fingerprints submitted to the FBI are not entered into AFIS but compared to existing records. Cards are then supposedly destroyed.

I wonder if this is monitored for compliance.

davidmcbeth · Feb 17, 2012

Grapeshot said:
A lot hangs on human verification of fingerprints. That can and does go wrong sometimes - sometimes very wrong.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20040607&slug=fingerprint07m

the people who do these tests are not trained scientists .. they have no idea what they are doing ... and fingerprint analysis has been shown to have significant flaws...as the judge ruled in 2000 before having the old-arm-turned by the gov't

TFred · Mar 11, 2012

I just noticed that HB 754 has been signed by the Governor! This law will directly affect about 1/3 of the localities in Virginia, as they will be required to modify their CHP process to remove the requirement to collect fingerprints.

Big improvement!

TFred

The Wolfhound · Mar 12, 2012

Yay!

.....and there was great rejoicing!:banana:

mk4 · Mar 12, 2012

...and with some education, arm-twisting and some luck, we'll get constitutional carry in force by 7/1/13 and won't need any of the processes with the circuit courts, other than a piece of paper that works to satisfy reciprocity with other, less enlightened, states.

Walt_Kowalski · Mar 12, 2012

Why would someone who has committed a felony by worried about carrying concealed without a permit (misdemeanor) ?

PWC_Glock · Mar 16, 2012

I have been fingerprinted by the DOD,DHS,DOA,PWCPD,MCPD and a couple of employees I used to work for for background checks ONLY never for a criminal charge.
I have also had my DNA taken/filed by the DOD.

That said I would not be a good criminal (even if I wanted to be). My fingerprints/DNA are in so many federal systems that even if they did not share results (which they do I suspect) I doubt I could escape.

ConFession of a Former Fingerprint Fence-Sitter

TFred

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member

mk4

Regular Member

Mike

Site Co-Founder

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

sawah

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member

Old Virginia Joe

Regular Member

TFred

Regular Member

Old Virginia Joe

Regular Member

swinokur

Activist Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

TFred

Regular Member

The Wolfhound

Regular Member

mk4

Regular Member

Walt_Kowalski

Regular Member

PWC_Glock

Regular Member