POLICE ROUTINELY FINGERPRINTING FOR TRAFFIC STOPS

https://www.freemarketnews.com ^ | Feb 11, 2005 | by Michael J. Ross

[FreeMarket1]

POLICE ROUTINELY FINGERPRINTING FOR TRAFFIC STOPS

Feb 11, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

by Michael J. Ross

Just when you thought it was safe to venture out on the road, visit scenic Lake Michigan, and get away from prying eyes in urban centers and corporate environments, the authorities have come up with a new, intrusive twist. 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. This means that, should you be stopped by the Green Bay police for having a malfunctioning brake light, playing your car stereo too loud, or any other offense that would normally receive only a citation, they could record your fingerprint immediately. 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 they 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. Some residents aren't buying that story either, telling interviewers that the law enforcement authorities are going too far with this new policy, as reported in an undated article appearing on the Web site of WBAY-TV, Northeast Wisconsin's channel 2 news.

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 ........................Full Article www.FreeMarketNews.com

[cicada]

Thanks for finally clearing up the (BITS) thing for me!

We have no idea what freedom is anymore.

[dljordan]

God bless you. Good post and I agree wholeheartedly. What will be the straw that breaks the camels back?

[dljordan]

I've got a piece of property in the Tennessee backwoods that sounds just right for you. You sound like you have lousy luck with cops (of all stripes) or God hates you. You need to hide till it blows over.

[patton]

Thanks, but I already own a few hundred mountain acres and a cabin in *$)&(%)))^^))^^)^)^))^)%#$&

And I have a degree in math, from MI.

You would not believe how that perked up the secret service...LOL

[blackbart.223]

"And the rest of us? Those who object to police-state tactics?"

There is a rack awaiting us I suppose.

[Stew Padasso]

"And the rest of us? Those who object to police-state tactics?"

Most likely a taser to the neck and your wallet emptied for safe measure.

[dljordan]

Just thought I'd offer.

[OldSmaj]

Seems only those with a dirty background have anything to fear.

Is that a serious remark you've made?

Surely not.

If it was intended to be serious, may I remind you of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

I invite you to read it, I won't post it here, just google US Constitution and find the Fourth Amendment thereto.

I fought several stinking little wars for this damned government, ostensibly in defense of that document.

I had several friends that gave their life for it.

Hell no, I will never willingly submit to this kind of police-state bullshit and anyone that does is not worthy of my support.

So can I assume that you just forgot the sarcasm tag?

[AFreeBird]

Screww em all, if you're dirty, go to jail and and don't pass go.

But that's just it; I'm not dirty, I've never had my prints taken either. Why should I have to have the assumption of guilt thrust upon me because I have a tail light out? To make YOU feel better?

Sorry, but screw you.

I know about databases and this is just a way to populate databases with out all the hubub.

Boiling frogs dontchaknow.

Wake up and smell the $#!t.

[patton]

On the other side of the coin, I can't even COUNT the fedaral agencies that have fingerprinted me.

Let's see, the Army, when I was 18.

No, that's not true - the army, when I was born. And then the army, when I was 16. And 17. And 18.

And then the DISS, when I was 18.

No, that's not true - The Department of State, when I was 12.

Wait - nevermind. It ain't worth worrying about.

So what started this - someone was afraid to get fingerprinted?

Why?

[Netizen]

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.

This seems reasonable to me and we know that it has been happening.

I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with this unless of course they have something to hide themselves.

[damncat]

Or the right to lie to law enforcement?

Freedom isn't free.

[damncat]

Pigs is a rather harsh word to discribe law enforcement.

I know many cops who don’t belong in any authoritative position. It’s a difficult to impossible job, however there are many who handle themselves with fairness and dignity. Plus you’re missing the fact the fingerprinting is voluntary.

Pigs indeed!

[damncat]

Actually, I’m sure their intention is to identify people who lie about their identity. A quite common occurrence among our less than honest citizens. The truth is, people lie. They lie about any and anything where taking personal responsibility enters the equation.

Tying the hands of law enforcement would be to the detriment of the people. So, who’s rights were violated? Was it the gangbanger who unknowingly admitted to obstruction of justice. [lying about his identity ] Or the peoples right to equal protection under that same law, to protect and serve society. Only the way it’s protected is subject to the whims and grumbling of the very same masters they’ve sworn to protect.

[damncat]

The probable cause existed when that citizen broke the law in the initial traffic stop. Or so it would seem. A good darn reason to obey the laws to begin with. Especially those simple traffic ordinances meant to again, protect the public good.

[damncat]

Police tactics?

Only those breaking traffic laws should have anything to fear. Some here are acting as if this is some gestapo tactic designed to subjugate the masses. It takes a really lame brained driver to find himself pulled over these days. How many unregistered and probably uninsured vehicles do you see roaming our roads? Those are ones who should fear strict enforcement. I know I fear them. If you can’t obey the smallest of laws, how much more so, the big one ones?

[Lazamataz]

Only those breaking traffic laws should have anything to fear. Some here are acting as if this is some gestapo tactic designed to subjugate the masses. It takes a really lame brained driver to find himself pulled over these days. How many unregistered and probably uninsured vehicles do you see roaming our roads? Those are ones who should fear strict enforcement. I know I fear them. If you can’t obey the smallest of laws, how much more so, the big one ones?

I think I know what it is.

You're insane.

Stark, staring mad.

[patton]

Laz, you gotta get with the program.

I was fingerprinted by the alphabet agencies the day I was born - and have been periodically, ever since.

DIA, CIA, FBI, SS, DISS, DoD, ...,whatever.

So gettining upset over being fingerprinted by a minimum-wage cop seems kind of silly.

[natewill]

I can't believe that FReepers are supporting this. Free Republic isn't the same as it was a few years ago. And just for those legalese jerks with too much time on their hands, I know that I've been a member since, I don't know, about a year or two or something, but I've been lurking for at least three years. Part of the reason that I joined Free Republic was because I thought I saw a group of people that were defending against government largesse among other things.
This fingerprinting move is a police-state-mentality answer to a small problem. It is like using a Weapon of Mass Destruction to kill a mosquito. It is the sci-fi biometrics version of 'your papers, please'.
And to those people that say 'if you have nothing to hide, then why do you care?': Do you have blinds on your windows? Do you have locks on your doors? Do you have a password for your email account? Yes, yes, and yes. Why? Privacy! Even though your only emails are from your aunt Margaret and herbal Viagra hawkers , you still have an email password because some things aren't supposed to be made public, even if they are harmless. You would feel funny giving someone the keys to your...aaah forget it. You've stopped listening.
Point is: this information can be used against a civilian population, even in the proper hands. And more than several FReepers don't realize how far this biometrics and citizen tracking is gonna go.

[Delta 21]

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 probable cause existed when that citizen broke the law in the initial traffic stop.

Since when does a violation of minor traffic laws constitute reasonable suspicion for a search? Lemme splain it to you.

Reasonable Suspicion

: an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time.

NOTE: A police officer stopping a person must be able to point to specific facts or circumstances even though the level of suspicion need not rise to that of the belief that is supported by probable cause. A reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch.

prob··a·ble cause
/'prä-b&-b&l-/

1 : a reasonable ground in fact and circumstance for a belief in the existence of certain circumstances (as that an offense has been or is being committed, that a person is guilty of an offense, that a particular search will uncover contraband, that an item to be seized is in a particular place, or that a specific fact or cause of action exists) called also reasonable cause.

NOTE: The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution stipulates that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Probable cause is also required for a warrantless arrest. Probable cause is an objective standard rather than a function of subjective opinion or suspicion not grounded in fact or circumstance. However, the facts or circumstances need not be of the nature of certainty necessary to establish proof in court.

2 : justification for an administrative search based on a showing that it is to be conducted in accordance with standardized nonarbitrary regulatory procedures designed to further public interest in regulatory enforcement that outweighs the intrusiveness of the search>

Neither #1 or #2 have been met.

A request for fingerprints is not warranted as a result of a minor traffic violation.

A request for a DNA sample or blood test is not warranted as a result of a minor traffic violation.

A request for narcotics dog search of your vehicle is not warranted as a result of a minor traffic violation.

Even if its your vehicle and you have absolutly nothing to hide. I hope you are never on the recieving end of one of these situations. I think your mind would be changed in a very short time.....but by then, it will be too late.