• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Police get power to check prints on the spot

Graphicd00d

Senior member
Aug 10, 2001
293
0
0
You people in Oregon better get on the ball and fight this.

oregonlive.com


Police get power to check prints on the spot

04/03/03

MAXINE BERNSTEIN

Portland police may soon be asking for more than a license when making a traffic stop, but also requesting a motorist to stick out a thumb and forefinger.

Next month, more than a dozen officers will carry handheld devices on the street that will allow them to instantly verify a person's identity by analyzing their fingerprints.

The Portland Police Bureau was awarded a $250,000 federal COPS grant to equip each of its five precincts with a device and distribute another 10 to investigative officers in the detective, gang enforcement, drugs and vice, and tactical operations divisions.

The Minnesota-based Identix manufactures the technology, which captures fingerprints at the scene and remotely transmits them to a database. The Portland police will run the prints against the FBI's automated fingerprint database, and a database of seven Western states, known as the Western Identification Network.

If there is a match, the system returns the person's name, date of birth and mug shot directly to the officer's handheld terminal, the size of a Palm Pilot. Then the officer can check the person's criminal history and search for any outstanding warrants.

Manufacturers and police tout the time it could save officers, keeping them from needlessly transporting suspects to a police precinct or jail to fingerprint them.

"With shrinking budgets and shrinking staff, we need to capitalize on emerging technology," said Capt. Greg Hendricks, of the bureau's identification division.

Within a year, the bureau intends to expand the pilot purchase of 15 to more than 300 terminals for all patrol officers, under $650,000 set aside for the Portland police by the U.S. Department of Justice and recently approved by Congress.

The devices will also give officers on horseback, bicycles and motorcycles, who do not have the mobile computer terminals that patrol officers have at their fingertips, the ability to access information on people they stop.

"It speeds up the process for the officer to confirm who they've stopped, and reduces mistaken identities on arrests," said Sgt. Jeff Kaer of the bureau's identification division.

Next week, the bureau has invited representatives from 15 police agencies, sheriff's offices and federal law enforcement in the metropolitan area to learn about the handheld fingerprinting device and gauge if there's interest in integrating them into a regional database that could give officers in the field immediate access to criminal histories on suspects in a four-county region. The counties include Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas and Clark.

"If we integrated this system regionally, all of the agencies could share information with each other," Kaer said. "As you know, crime doesn't stop at the city line."

The City Council is expected to approve the bureau's contract with Identix at its meeting next week.

The same handheld device is also capable of facial recognition, a an emerging technology now used by a number of law enforcement agencies to find wanted criminals whose faces are in databases. Border patrol agencies have used the facial-recognition component to run the faces of people coming into the country against a database of photos of suspected terrorists. Maxine Bernstein: 503-221-8212; maxinebernstein@news.oregonian.com



 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Er, I don't see the problem. If they want to fingerprint you, they can just haul you down to the station. This simply allows them to do it at the scene. And as far as I can tell, it doesn't give them any more legal right to do so, it simply makes it easier for them to do it on the spot. It's technology, not a law change (unless I missed something).
 

RigorousT

Senior member
Jan 12, 2001
560
0
0
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
your guilty til proven innocent.....errr...is that how the saying goes.
No more worse than having to go through a metal detector at an airport... Why would this have an adverse affect on your rights unless you are a practicing criminal?

Like Raisford said, they can already ask you for ID and if you can't provide it, they'll drag your butt to the police station and get your prints there. A crime fighting gadget that saves you and them time and allows them to stay on the streets more... Gee, that sucks!

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: RigorousT
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
your guilty til proven innocent.....errr...is that how the saying goes.
No more worse than having to go through a metal detector at an airport... Why would this have an adverse affect on your rights unless you are a practicing criminal?

Like Raisford said, they can already ask you for ID and if you can't provide it, they'll drag your butt to the police station and get your prints there. A crime fighting gadget that saves you and them time and allows them to stay on the streets more... Gee, that sucks!

This is quite the double edged sword. IF you dont want to go thru a metal detector at the airport, you just dont travel via air. If you are pulled over, you lose a right to privacy automatically, even if you are not guilty of a crime. Somehow I doubt the fingerprint scans are discarded after running a database lookup on other fingerprints.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: RigorousT
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
your guilty til proven innocent.....errr...is that how the saying goes.
No more worse than having to go through a metal detector at an airport... Why would this have an adverse affect on your rights unless you are a practicing criminal?

Like Raisford said, they can already ask you for ID and if you can't provide it, they'll drag your butt to the police station and get your prints there. A crime fighting gadget that saves you and them time and allows them to stay on the streets more... Gee, that sucks!

This is quite the double edged sword. IF you dont want to go thru a metal detector at the airport, you just dont travel via air. If you are pulled over, you lose a right to privacy automatically, even if you are not guilty of a crime. Somehow I doubt the fingerprint scans are discarded after running a database lookup on other fingerprints.

And that is the dilema - I don't see a problem if the device only reads and scans a db for a match but if it can also make a db entry then I can see issues with it.

CkG
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: RigorousT
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
your guilty til proven innocent.....errr...is that how the saying goes.
No more worse than having to go through a metal detector at an airport... Why would this have an adverse affect on your rights unless you are a practicing criminal?

Like Raisford said, they can already ask you for ID and if you can't provide it, they'll drag your butt to the police station and get your prints there. A crime fighting gadget that saves you and them time and allows them to stay on the streets more... Gee, that sucks!

This is quite the double edged sword. IF you dont want to go thru a metal detector at the airport, you just dont travel via air. If you are pulled over, you lose a right to privacy automatically, even if you are not guilty of a crime. Somehow I doubt the fingerprint scans are discarded after running a database lookup on other fingerprints.

And that is the dilema - I don't see a problem if the device only reads and scans a db for a match but if it can also make a db entry then I can see issues with it.

CkG

I agree. Ideally I would be all for the usage of such technology, but since this is our government doing the using, you have to weigh the potential abuse and damage to our freedoms vs. the potential damage caused by criminals not caught if they failed to use it. Hmmm... I'm thinking using this wouldn't really make much of a difference as far as getting criminals off the streets. Maybe an odd one here or there, but the cops can already do a pretty good job of finding out just who someone is as things are now.
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
I dont see a problem with it if its not abused. like i said if you have nothing to hide then nothing to worry about...

:D
 

Tiger

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,312
0
0
I have no problem with it as long as the rules of probable cause and search and seizure are followed.
If they're going to arrest you, as in you've failed the breath-a-lizer, I don't see as it makes a difference where you finger printed.
As far as I know nobody in this country can be forced to give a finger print without first being arrested.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Tiger
I have no problem with it as long as the rules of probable cause and search and seizure are followed.
If they're going to arrest you, as in you've failed the breath-a-lizer, I don't see as it makes a difference where you finger printed.
As far as I know nobody in this country can be forced to give a finger print without first being arrested.

Unfortunatly this is not true. The state of Texas now requires a thumbprint if you want a drivers license. I was not amused that this got passed.
 

Ylen13

Banned
Sep 18, 2001
2,457
0
0
I see a big problem. Before in order for them to take a fingerprint of the thumb they had to arrest you and bring you to the station. In order to arrest you they had to have probable cause for it. Now that is out the window. All they need to do is have probable suspicion which they already have if they pulled you over.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Tiger
I have no problem with it as long as the rules of probable cause and search and seizure are followed.
If they're going to arrest you, as in you've failed the breath-a-lizer, I don't see as it makes a difference where you finger printed.
As far as I know nobody in this country can be forced to give a finger print without first being arrested.

There is a real problem with false positives. Complex fingerprint patterns are simplified into a set of codes that identify key features of the print. However, any number of people can have that same set of codes. Normally, an index match is followed by a trained fingerprint tech comparing the prints to ensure that the prints really match.

This shouldn't be a problem as long as the officer gets a picture back and verifies that he has the right person. Still, someone might get mistakenly arrested if there is no photo available with the fingerprint index.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
If your arrested, finger printed in this way - and then released without charge, is there an electronic record kept of your prints from this time?

Cheers,

Andy
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Fencer128
If your arrested, finger printed in this way - and then released without charge, is there an electronic record kept of your prints from this time?

Cheers,

Andy

I think that is the single biggest question. :) And the answer will show the real intent.

CkG
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: AnImuS
I dont see a problem with it if its not abused. like i said if you have nothing to hide then nothing to worry about...

:D

Might as well just give up all your rights with that attitude.