• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NC LE using portable fingerprinting units during traffic stops

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
WRAL, Raleigh's news outlet, did a live spot announced tonight the nice LEs have been/are using portable fingerprinting units during traffic stops since November ~ 500 times resulting in 168 arrests from the traffic stop.

SPolice coordinator for the project stated it was imperative consent to the nice LE's request to field administered fingerprinting; while the ACLU stated citizens could refuse; cutting back to the SP coordinator who publicly state in the continuation of his initial statement said, citizens could refuse but would be arrested on the spot for refusal to provide identification to a LE.

units immediately check both State & Federal databases.

The SPolice coordinator concluded his statement by saying this was necessary for 'officer safety'!

WRAL presenter stated the nice LEs also use the units to identify dead and OH...citizen's prints would not be kept in any type of database!!!

anybody have background on what i personally believe is a transgression to my civil rights?

added: i apologize but searched WRAL's site immediately after i heard their commentary
and am unable to find anything on he subject.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
WRAL, Raleigh's news outlet, did a live spot announced tonight the nice LEs have been/are using portable fingerprinting units during traffic stops since November ~ 500 times resulting in 168 arrests from the traffic stop.

SPolice coordinator for the project stated it was imperative consent to the nice LE's request to field administered fingerprinting; while the ACLU stated citizens could refuse; cutting back to the SP coordinator who publicly state in the continuation of his initial statement said, citizens could refuse but would be arrested on the spot for refusal to provide identification to a LE.

units immediately check both State & Federal databases.

The SPolice coordinator concluded his statement by saying this was necessary for 'officer safety'!

WRAL presenter stated the nice LEs also use the units to identify dead and OH...citizen's prints would not be kept in any type of database!!!

anybody have background on what i personally believe is a transgression to my civil rights?

The police officer is entitled to lie to you. The reverse is not true.

Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
OK here is the problem, it goes back to what I stated earlier, in some states a traffic stop IS an arrest. Apparantly so in NC which gives them the authority to finger print. Do they have to tell you that it might be an arrest, NO. So if you submit without asking questions it is consensual, and the fingerprints taken are consensual. Does anybody start to understand how real police investigations from top to bottom works. It is always best to have the person think they are not detained, or under arrest for officer safety, UNTIL it cannot be withheld longer. Sometimes this means until backup arrives, sometimes it is just to dig a little deeper before the citizen catches on. Is it a violation of your rights, no if you consent, the moment you do not the officer will most likely inform that you are under arrest. This is done in Texas all the time, probably where NC got the idea. Texas officers can take into custody for even a minor traffic offense though it does not usually happen that way. The courts have upheld the police ability to obtain identification when conducting an investigation, or making an arrest. One way around this is not carrying ID, but a person must still provide name, and date of birth. The fingerprint just takes out any chance of giving the officer false information.

Not all lawyers have common sense, or are very bright, especially those real estate lawyers, or tax lawyers. Especially ACLU lawyers. It is kinda like the guy who thinks he is a medical doctor because he has a phd in the arts, or a back quack.

Sooo~~Yes they can, and you can consent, or be arrested if they so choose. If you consent, and it goes to court, even though you might feel you had no choice, the courts will most likely rule you consented.

Hopefully this helps a little bit. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/justifies-arrest-probable-cause.html

Example A driver is stopped for a routine traffic violation. The driver technically is under arrest because the driver is not free to leave until the officer has written a ticket (or if it’s the driver’s lucky day, only issued a warning). But the arrest is temporary. Assuming the officer has no basis to suspect that the driver is engaged in criminal activity other than the traffic violation, the officer usually releases the driver once the driver produces identification and signs a promise to appear in court (assuming a ticket was written). Traffic stop arrests do not become part of a person’s arrest record, and do not count as arrests for the purpose of answering the question, “Have you ever been arrested?” (on a job or license application, for example).
 
Last edited:

bc.cruiser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
786
Location
Fayetteville NC
Sorry, Nightmare, but you are going to have to wait on someone else to ask why you cite WI laws on the NC sub-forum.:D

I travel through WI often enough that this is good info. Thank you.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
A valid and current DL is not enough to determine identity? Seems a little more than a wee bit shady to me. I do not believe that any bio-metric collected data is not retained.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
A valid and current DL is not enough to determine identity? Seems a little more than a wee bit shady to me. I do not believe that any bio-metric collected data is not retained.

exactly my thoughts and has me pondering action to object to the practice.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
They chip dogs don't they?

Down boy - stay.

Personally I don't like the idea, but it does appear to be legal. Until the courts determine that it is too invasive for a traffic stop, I believe there has been some rulings on strip searches at traffic stops.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
WRAL, Raleigh's news outlet, did a live spot announced tonight the nice LEs have been/are using portable fingerprinting units during traffic stops since November ~ 500 times resulting in 168 arrests from the traffic stop.
.

As with any equipment that an law enforcement agency has it can be used properly or improperly.

One really needs to know what the department policy is when one finger prints are taken in the field.

One needs to know if there are any laws regulating the taking of finger prints in the field.

One needs to know the total number of traffic stops to know if the number of 500 is a large or small percentage of the total number of stops. Then one really should add in the number of passengers also.

Raleigh PD has about 800 officers several hundred stops a day would be reasonable for that size dept.

There were times in my career where being able to positively ID some one in the field would have been very useful.

Especially when one is dealing with a name based warrant system and common names. Stop a Robert Smith one could get a lot of warrant hits. Could save the wrong Robert Smith from going to jail until his ID was proven the correct Robert Smith going. to Jail.

Also it is common for criminals to lie about their ID.

Can a finger print reader be used improperly yes.

Can it serve a lawful and legal law enforcement purpose yes.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
As with any equipment that an law enforcement agency has it can be used properly or improperly.

One really needs to know what the department policy is when one finger prints are taken in the field.

One needs to know if there are any laws regulating the taking of finger prints in the field.

One needs to know the total number of traffic stops to know if the number of 500 is a large or small percentage of the total number of stops. Then one really should add in the number of passengers also.

Raleigh PD has about 800 officers several hundred stops a day would be reasonable for that size dept.

There were times in my career where being able to positively ID some one in the field would have been very useful.

Especially when one is dealing with a name based warrant system and common names. Stop a Robert Smith one could get a lot of warrant hits. Could save the wrong Robert Smith from going to jail until his ID was proven the correct Robert Smith going. to Jail.

Also it is common for criminals to lie about their ID.

Can a finger print reader be used improperly yes.

Can it serve a lawful and legal law enforcement purpose yes.
Violating a policy on the retention of biometric data is far different than violation of our 4A right. Putting the wrong Robert Smith in jail does not get the correct Robert Smith in jail. Taking a citizen to jail due to a lack of due diligence on the part of a cop is a serious violation and must warrant serious consequences. A "sorry, my bad" is not acceptable.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
Violating a policy on the retention of biometric data is far different than violation of our 4A right. Putting the wrong Robert Smith in jail does not get the correct Robert Smith in jail. Taking a citizen to jail due to a lack of due diligence on the part of a cop is a serious violation and must warrant serious consequences. A "sorry, my bad" is not acceptable.

Well I guess you never read pages of warrant returns when you have limited data and have suspects lie to you to avoid being arrested.

Most of the time it can be straighten out in the field by asking the right questions. There are the rare occasion when things just don't add up and positive ID needed to be established. In the old days where one had to take paper finger print cards and mail them to the state crime lab and the FBI for identification purposes it could take a week or better.

Had one guy who purposely smeared his prints many times. Finely the judge told him after several times he would sit in jail until he gave us a good set.

As we figured there was a reason he did not want a proper ID establish he had many outstand felony warrants out for him from several places around the country. That was only established when we received the print results back from the FBI.

Your right taking the wrong person to jail is a serious thing, so is letting a wanted rapist and murderer go when you have them in your hands.

It has gotten easier now that one can transmit pictures and other data electronically making sure one has the right person. Finger printing in the field is just another safeguard for making sure you have the right person. Instead of taking them to jail and waiting for the results to come back.

Whole sale finger printing of everybody stopped would be serious violations of those persons rights.

Finger printing some one because they have no ID on them when they are under suspicion committing of a crime or being wanted is another matter.

Could very well result in making sure that the wrong person is not taken to jail more often then not. As one can see that 500 were printed and only 168 were arrested.

We don't know the circumstances or the reasons these 500 people had their finger prints checked or the percentage of total stops they involved.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Well I guess you never read pages of warrant returns when you have limited data and have suspects lie to you to avoid being arrested.

Most of the time it can be straighten out in the field by asking the right questions. There are the rare occasion when things just don't add up and positive ID needed to be established. In the old days where one had to take paper finger print cards and mail them to the state crime lab and the FBI for identification purposes it could take a week or better.

Had one guy who purposely smeared his prints many times. Finely the judge told him after several times he would sit in jail until he gave us a good set.

As we figured there was a reason he did not want a proper ID establish he had many outstand felony warrants out for him from several places around the country. That was only established when we received the print results back from the FBI.

Your right taking the wrong person to jail is a serious thing, so is letting a wanted rapist and murderer go when you have them in your hands.

It has gotten easier now that one can transmit pictures and other data electronically making sure one has the right person. Finger printing in the field is just another safeguard for making sure you have the right person. Instead of taking them to jail and waiting for the results to come back.

Whole sale finger printing of everybody stopped would be serious violations of those persons rights.

Finger printing some one because they have no ID on them when they are under suspicion committing of a crime or being wanted is another matter.

Could very well result in making sure that the wrong person is not taken to jail more often then not. As one can see that 500 were printed and only 168 were arrested.

We don't know the circumstances or the reasons these 500 people had their finger prints checked or the percentage of total stops they involved.
Nice backhanded nod to our 4A. Just one single incident is too many.
All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; forthe law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocentparty suffer.
Also a nice appeal to our emotions.

And, what if i choose to not address a investigating officer's questions that I deem beyond the limits of his justification for the stop? Am I to be subjected to extra legal peril to satisfy his hunch? No, no citizen must be subjected to finger printing unless accused of a crime beyond a minor speeding violation where a valid and current DL is presented as the law proscribes.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
My perception after digesting presented discussion points still goes back to my concern that those within/associated within the nice LE community believe their serve and protect cause "just and noble" facilitating with their mentality the traffic fingerprinting of citizens along the roadside, justifies their doing it no matter what!

btw, this pervasive mentality the nice LE's have honestly scares the bejesus out of me!!

on the other hand, since the nice LE(s) already know i am armed after checking the vehicle's plate (in my name), i am mandated by NC statutes to present my DL & CHP (both in my name) upon my initial opening interaction of "hello officer...how may i help you?" should not necessitate the nice LE's fingerprinting me!

tho my next discussion if the nice can disarm me for their safety...a forum discussion left for another time.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
More than likely a fingerprint will keep an innocent from going to jail rather than being incarcerated. Fingerprints are a physical feature, unless wearing gloves they are present to the public like a face. No invasive procedure is done, no swabbing, no pin *****, it is legal to expect to be ID if stopped. More than likely the gov already has your fingerprints if you have ever worked for them, or those younger their parents submitted copies when younger, a program I don't believe they do anymore. EVERY time a person is stopped for a traffic stop, I mean every time, there is a felony warrant, and records search. Did I say every time, so this is nothing new, if they got a hit I would fully expect them to take every means possible to make sure they have the right person.

Come on people YOU leave fingerprints everywhere you go. I once got the fingerprints from a murderer by picking up the can he drank a beer out of after he pitched it. Normally we would have picked him up, and printed him, but we wanted PC to do a search of his vehicle, and home without alerting him. Actually could have cited him for throwing the beer can out of his truck window. Once we had the prints that matched the murder scene in Missouri we served warrants for everywhere he could have left evidence, including his present GF house. So unless you plan on never touching anything your fingerprints are everywhere you go. If you are suspected of a crime you can be sure the police have them before actually being fingerprinted.

Today if you smoke a cigarette, and pitch it, the police have every legal right to pick it up, and run DNA. But I believe gathering DNA at a traffic stop is too expensive, and would be considered invasive. I get that people are upset about fingerprints being gathered, but it is legal, and no more different than using facial recognition. Which used to take a good amount of time before computers. Officers used to keep a binder with wanted criminals pictures in their car, fingerprints are no different, they are part of making an ID. Which the police have no right to do unless you have committed a crime, or are suspected of committing a crime. And breaking traffic laws in most states IS a crime.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
Nice backhanded nod to our 4A. Just one single incident is too many.Also a nice appeal to our emotions.

And, what if i choose to not address a investigating officer's questions that I deem beyond the limits of his justification for the stop? Am I to be subjected to extra legal peril to satisfy his hunch? No, no citizen must be subjected to finger printing unless accused of a crime beyond a minor speeding violation where a valid and current DL is presented as the law proscribes.

No one has summited any proof that any of the people were finger printed for the wrong reason.

There can be lawful reasons to finger print a person on the street. There is no reason to believe the people that were finger printed did not meet those requirements.

No one said the finger printing should be done of every body stopped.

If portable finger print readers are use properly fine if it is abuse then those abuses should be taken care of.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
No one has summited any proof that any of the people were finger printed for the wrong reason.

There can be lawful reasons to finger print a person on the street. There is no reason to believe the people that were finger printed did not meet those requirements.

No one said the finger printing should be done of every body stopped.

If portable finger print readers are use properly fine if it is abuse then those abuses should be taken care of.

1. 2005: https://www.ross.ws/content/police-fingerprinting-traffic-stops
Police in Green Bay, Wisconsin, are now fingerprinting anyone that they pull over at a traffic stop — even for the most minor of traffic violations. The rationale (or rationalization) for this new procedure, is that the police claim to be seeing an "increasing use of false or fraudulent identification documents" (i.e., driver's licenses) during the past couple of years. They claim that they simply want to avoid the identity theft problem that they are seeing in Milwaukee, where apparently 13 percent of all traffic violators give a false name to the arresting officer.

However, this explanation could be charged as being equally fraudulent, considering that Green Bay experiences, on average, only five such cases per year.

Green Bay police counter these objections by pointing out that anyone pulled over has the right to refuse being fingerprinted. But consider what small percentage of the population would want to refuse the "request" of an armed police officer, especially one who is likely about to decide what if any traffic violations to cite the citizens for. In fact, considering how nervous most people are when pulled over by the police, it's easy to imagine that the majority of the people in that situation wouldn't remember that they actually do possess that right (assuming they have heard the facts beforehand), much less exercise their right of refusal (assuming the officer even mentions it to them).

The authorities also defend this new procedure by noting that the fingerprint goes no further than the ticket itself, is only used to verify identification should that be challenged in the future, and is not stored in any database.

2. 2010: our own OCDO Thread: Traffic Stop: "Your papers please --- AND your fingerprints!": http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...our-papers-please-AND-your-fingerprints!-quot

it appears NC is behind the profit center power curve...
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Is it too late to ask "What IS the NC law regarding identification? Is it the same as the NC "Stop and Identify" law... of which there isn't one?

Could someone kindly explain how one isn't 'identified' by merely stating their true name and date of birth as the Supreme Court agreed was sufficient?
 
Top