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

[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.