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

[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.