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

[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.