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]

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.