procedural question

[kaigou]

If the police/authorities bring someone in for questioning, but have not charge the person with a crime, can they take fingerprints? Or is that considered invasive or violating rights or potential self-incrimination if they do so before formally charging the person?

...Not just the US, that is, if you're not US and you have any vague idea of the procedure where you live, then I'd be curious to hear that, too. Mostly because I like police procedural dramas, in any language, and the "we think he's this guy (or he looks just like this other guy)" mistaken identity (or non-mistaken undercover schtick) is a common plot-step the world over, it seems. And since that would so easily be cleared up by a set of freaking fingerprints, I'm wondering when I should see the non-fingerprinting as accurate for a culture, versus a plot-hole.

Comments

[starscream]

Granted this came from Advice.org and as well is from the UK, it does answer your one question.

If you have been arrested, the police have the power to take your fingerprints, photographs and a DNA sample.

Even if you are not convicted of an offence, the police currently have the power to keep your fingerprints and DNA sample on a DNA database.

But the government are suggesting a change to this law. This is because keeping your fingerprints and DNA on a database has been found to be a breach of your human rights.

[kaigou]

It seems relatively standard in the western world to fingerprint upon arrest, along with photograph. But if there's not enough reason/evidence to arrest, and the person is just being questioned... that's where the gray area seems to be. Gonna try the cop community on LJ, see what they know.

(in other news: dude, where have you been?)

[starscream]

The cop comm will likely give you a straight answer too. I'd imagine they strive to try and show people that they shouldn't fear cops and try to squish a lot of misinformation.

Ahaha I just haven't had anything to post about. It's one of those things like, I always have the page open to say something and... nothing comes from my fingers. The last time I made a series of posts was when I made one of the biggest mistakes of my life, so. :D

[kaigou]

You can always post cat-pictures, y'know.

[starscream]

I should have snapped one earlier when Samus was asleep on my coat and kept meowing at me anytime I came near.

[kaigou]

Do it! The power of the cute COMPELS YOU.

[starscream]

I will next time one of them is being too cute to resist.

I've hit that point where I always see things I need to reply to / say something about and I file it away with, "Well once I finish what I'm doing I'll go to it." Then of course by the time I am free enough to do it, I've completely forgotten about it. :') That's happening to me a LOT lately it seems.

[tesserae]

There's an lj comm called ask_a_cop. You might ask there; it seems to be monitored by any number of cops.

In California, we are routinely asked for a thumbprint when we apply for or renew a driver's license - so theoretically, we're all in the database already.

[kaigou]

Not to mention the banks that now require a thumbprint if you don't have an account with them, if you're trying to cash a check off one of their accounts. I get why they'd do it, but it still bugs the hell out of me.

(But even if you're in the database, if they can't ask for your fingerprints to check you against the database, it's still not good for much.)

[qem_chibati]

I remember it came up with the pubs wanting to take fingerprints to cut down on violence, here in Australia.


http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/you-want-a-drink-give-us-your-fingerprints-20110131-1a9zr.html

Biometric scanners, once the domain of James Bond movies, are flooding the pub market as the fix-all solution to violence and antisocial behaviour. The pubs are exerting more power than the police or airport security by demanding photos, fingerprints and ID. Police can only do it if they suspect someone of committing a crime and they must destroy the data if the person is not charged or found not guilty.

[kaigou]

Yeah. I dealt with the same thing going into a restaurant/bar in Sweden: they could charge you to check your coat, and if you refused to check your coat, they could turn you away OR pat you down. Basically, you were required to check your coat, and pay for the privilege at that! Annoying... but private businesses are not bound by the same laws/standards as govt/police.

[aldanise]

I'm 99% sure that the police demanding fingerprints in the absence of an arrest is technically an "unreasonable search" in US law. This does not of course prevent them from 'inviting' a suspect to voluntarily give fingerprints or from sneakily getting them off of a mug they give the suspect (the first would be what I know from reality, while the second is a favorite on procedurals), but requiring the fingerprints in the absence of an arrest or court order has generally been judged a violation of civil rights, I believe.

I...don't actually know about Japan. Huh.

[love]

My fingerprints are on file in Japan. I had to give them the prints in order to get police clearance.

[aldanise]

They took mine, too, to get into the country, and they're probably still on file. I just wondered if citizens got more protection. What do you mean by police clearance?

[kaigou]

To get into the country? Is that a recent requirement? Because I didn't need to do fingerprinting to get my passport, and I wasn't fingerprinted in entering the Netherlands, Sweden, or Australia.

(Or maybe there's some intra-nation politics there, dunno. I had to a visa for Australia, but that was the first time. Previously I'd not needed one to travel, but Australia was a trip after 9/11, so maybe the rules changed.)

[aldanise]

I fail at clarity. To get into Japan, I meant. I think the requirement has been around for a while; Japan has a pretty strong thread of "but the foreigners do it" in its discourse about crime.

[love]

I suspect that people would give their fingerprints willingly in order to be cleared off the list of suspects.

I needed a letter from the Japanese police stating that I was a person of good conduct in order to get a US immigration visa. I also had to get one from Malaysia because I'm Malaysian.

[mongrelheart]

I read that the police may ask people to give their fingerprints so they can eliminate them from a list of suspects. If the person refuses, they can get a warrant to require them to give fingerprints. They don't have to be in custody or charged with a crime.

They might already have them even if the person has never been charged with a crime, as many jobs (especially govt jobs) require fingerprints to be submitted.

[kaigou]

Ayup, but the plot point in particular was that they had fingerprints on file, but could not ask the person to confirm this (with new fingerprints). And having fingerprints on file doesn't do you any good if you think they're falsified, but can't compare them to the right-there person's fingerprints.

However, it does seem to be (at least in the US, from what the cops are saying) that you can't get fingerprints without charging the person, and you can't charge a person simply to clear them from the list of suspects. IOW: if you don't have reasonable enough (other) reason for charging them, you wouldn't be issued a warrant solely for the fingerprints. Word is that in such a case, you would just do your best to convince the person to fingerprint voluntarily.

[mongrelheart]

Ah, just read your post in the cops community, & the replies. I didn't realize that if you are being questioned, that it *is* an arrest.

Presumably if the person refused to voluntarily give their fingerprints, and they do have enough probable cause to obtain a warrant, and the person is then compelled to give fingerprints, they are considered to be under arrest while doing so.

[kaigou]

I didn't realize that if you are being questioned, that it *is* an arrest.

Me neither. I thought you could just "come down for questioning" -- I mean, I knew you could say no to that, or you might say yes for whatever reason. But there seems to be a gray area that I'd forgotten, in which if you come in voluntarily, you can still refuse on other things (like fingerprints) because you're not (yet) under arrest. Once you are, though... then suddenly, consent is no longer an issue.

[ticktocktober]

Asked My Dad, The Cop, and he confirmed that unless they'be been arrested, they aren't compelled to give fingerprints, DNA, or anything of that sort; it's all voluntary.

[ticktocktober]

Just to clarify, I can only vouch for the state of Virginia.

[kaigou]

Yep, same word I'm getting elsewhere.

Semi-related: you might want to avoid ever mentioning what cops can do in Japan. It'd either make your dad gnash his teeth at the bureaucracy/laws that make his job really difficult sometimes... or it'd make him gnash his teeth at how much easier it'd be to abuse the citizenry without those obstacles.

(Like, say, the lack of a need for search warrants for private residences. No assumption of privacy!)

[love]

If they haven't charged you with a crime, they can't take fingerprints (officially). I've seen police dramas where they give you a glass of water and then take that away and have the prints lifted from it. I don't know if that's actually legal and would consult someone who actually is a lawyer or a cop.

This sounds like a good question for Littledetails on LJ...

[kaigou]

I believe the fingerprints-from-glass would be thrown out of court. You certainly couldn't hinge the entire case on it, because (at least in the US) it'd be considered involuntary search or something like that, can't remember the phrase now. You'd have to be able to prove via some completely independent evidence that you would've ended up arresting this person anyway, at which point you might be able to make the fingerprints part of the case, but that last part is a maybe, from what I hear. Possibly depending on whether the judge is paying attention, or something.

[nnayram.livejournal.com]

Depends on the country and on the person. If it were the EU and it was a EU citizen, I believe they might already have the fingerprints on file. My country, a new EU member state, introduced new ID cards that incorporate the fingerprint information in. I had to go the consulate in NYC and have my fingerprints taken when I was renewing my about-to-expire ID card. Technically, you don't have to renew your documentation until it expires, though, so it *is* possible that the information is only on file for people who have had to get new ID cards issued for whatever reason.

Also, certain countries would not require the fingerprints of visitors already in the country since they'd have them on file: see http://stallman.org/bad-border-policy-countries.html.

You might be interested in this wiki article, even though the information is not always mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_identity_card_policies_by_country

[kaigou]

Technically, you don't have to renew your documentation until it expires, though, so it *is* possible that the information is only on file for people who have had to get new ID cards issued for whatever reason.

There is that: any time there's an update to an ID policy, there's always a lag. Although people can fall through the cracks in other ways, like in a Taiwanese drama I watched, where the usual assumption is that (due to mandatory military service), of course the guy would be on file... but he's not, because (as a former homeless person), he was never tracked down and forced to do his military service. So, no records at all on file for him, because he never got entered in the 'expected' manner.

(also, thanks for the links! nomnomnom.)