Traffic stop finger printing Green Bay, WI

[NoStateofMind]

It seems that if you are pulled over in Green Bay, Wisconsin, you will be required to be finger printed. This IMO infringes on my right to privacy as given to us from the Constitution. Also reminds me of Nazi Germany "Papers please!".

Text

If you're ticketed by Green Bay police, you'll get more than a fine. You'll get fingerprinted, too. It's a new way police are cracking down on crime.

If you're caught speeding or playing your music too loud, or other crimes for which you might receive a citation, Green Bay police officers will ask for your drivers license and your finger. You'll be fingerprinted right there on the spot. The fingerprint appears right next to the amount of the fine.

Police say it's meant to protect you -- in case the person they're citing isn't who they claim to be. But not everyone is sold on that explanation.

"What we've seen happen for the last couple of years [is] increasing use of false or fraudulent identification documents," Captain Greg Urban said.

Police say they want to prevent the identity theft problem that Milwaukee has, where 13 percent of all violators give a false name.

But in Green Bay, where police say they only average about five cases in a year, drivers we talked with think the new policy is extreme.

"That's going too far," Ken Scherer from Oconto said. "You look at the ID, that's what they're there for. Either it's you or it's not. I don't think that's a valid excuse."

"I would feel uncomfortable but I would do it," Carol Pilgrim of Green Bay said.

Citizens do have the right to say no. "They could say no and not have to worry about getting arrested," defense attorney Jackson Main said. "On the other hand, I'm like everybody else. When a police officer tells me to do something, I'm going to do it whether I have the right to say no or not."

That's exactly why many drivers are uneasy about the fine print in this fingerprinting policy.

Police stress that the prints are just to make sure you are who you claim to be and do not go into any kind of database; they simply stay on the ticket for future reference if the identity is challenged.

Giving up liberty for safety again I see. Well at least thats what they are telling us. :roll:

This is the "foot in the door" so to speak. They say you aren't "required" but how long until you get tazed for not giving your finger print? How long until you are jailed for not giving your finger print. I say we give them a finger alright, just not a print!


Fox also ran a piece on it.

 

[3chordcharlie]

If you haven't done anything (else) wrong, why would you be worried?

Besides, you don't have a right to privacy if you were speeding - you're a criminal.

 

[Fern]

Police stress that the prints are just to make sure you are who you claim to be and do not go into any kind of database; they simply stay on the ticket for future reference if the identity is challenged.

Well, unless they already have your fingerprints in their database, it sure as h3ll is NOT going to tell them who you are.

If you're an imposter, and the real person's print aren't in the database - they won't even know you're lying.

Geez, imagine if the imposter goes out and commits some crime like a murder and leaves his prints behind? The "real" person would be arrested and it wouldn't be cleared up until he's booked and printed.

Fern

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Fern

Police stress that the prints are just to make sure you are who you claim to be and do not go into any kind of database; they simply stay on the ticket for future reference if the identity is challenged.

Well, unless they already have your fingerprints in their database, it sure as h3ll is NOT going to tell them who you are.

If you're an imposter, and the real person's print aren't in the database - they won't even know you're lying.

Geez, imagine if the imposter goes out and commits some crime like a murder and leaves his prints behind? The "real" person would be arrested and it wouldn't be cleared up until he's booked and printed.

Fern

The obvious point is that when the ticket is unpaid, and they track you down, you can prove it wasn't you.

It's still retarded.

 

[techs]

Your papers! (in heavy German accent)

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Fern

Police stress that the prints are just to make sure you are who you claim to be and do not go into any kind of database; they simply stay on the ticket for future reference if the identity is challenged.

Well, unless they already have your fingerprints in their database, it sure as h3ll is NOT going to tell them who you are.

If you're an imposter, and the real person's print aren't in the database - they won't even know you're lying.

Geez, imagine if the imposter goes out and commits some crime like a murder and leaves his prints behind? The "real" person would be arrested and it wouldn't be cleared up until he's booked and printed.

Fern

I see this as a way to GET your finger prints into that database. I disagree with anyone who thinks that this is lawful and ok for the government to do. I value my privacy and I am not property of my government.

 

[compuwiz1]

Big deal. I have nothing to fear of this. Most people's prints are already in a database anyway. Employment clearances, check cashing, military service and arrests for any reason all come to mind as possible sources.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Fern

Police stress that the prints are just to make sure you are who you claim to be and do not go into any kind of database; they simply stay on the ticket for future reference if the identity is challenged.

Well, unless they already have your fingerprints in their database, it sure as h3ll is NOT going to tell them who you are.

If you're an imposter, and the real person's print aren't in the database - they won't even know you're lying.

Geez, imagine if the imposter goes out and commits some crime like a murder and leaves his prints behind? The "real" person would be arrested and it wouldn't be cleared up until he's booked and printed.

Fern

The obvious point is that when the ticket is unpaid, and they track you down, you can prove it wasn't you.

It's still retarded.

Yeah, I realize that.

Too bad these guys can't bring themselves to state it accurately.

Otherwise, I'd sure as h3ll like to know this identity confusion exists in teh first place. Are they still issuing paper DL's, or if you say you "left it at home" they take your word for who you are?

Sounds lame to me. And they're treating the symptoms, not the cause.

Fern

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Fern

Police stress that the prints are just to make sure you are who you claim to be and do not go into any kind of database; they simply stay on the ticket for future reference if the identity is challenged.

Well, unless they already have your fingerprints in their database, it sure as h3ll is NOT going to tell them who you are.

If you're an imposter, and the real person's print aren't in the database - they won't even know you're lying.

Geez, imagine if the imposter goes out and commits some crime like a murder and leaves his prints behind? The "real" person would be arrested and it wouldn't be cleared up until he's booked and printed.

Fern

The obvious point is that when the ticket is unpaid, and they track you down, you can prove it wasn't you.

It's still retarded.

Yeah, I realize that.

Too bad these guys can't bring themselves to state it accurately.

Otherwise, I'd sure as h3ll like to know this identity confusion exists in teh first place. Are they still issuing paper DL's, or if you say you "left it at home" they take your word for who you are?

Sounds lame to me. And they're treating the symptoms, not the cause.

Fern

Isn't that how all unwinnable "wars" are? The "war on terror" where "the act" is the symptom, not the cause, the cause being our foreign policy. The "war on drugs" attacks the symptoms (the peoples use) and ignores the cause (laws). IMO there is also a war on our civil liberties, privacy being one of them. I don't want to derail the thread into another "Iraq" debate, but it seems similar. Do you agree?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Fern
Yeah, I realize that.

Too bad these guys can't bring themselves to state it accurately.

Otherwise, I'd sure as h3ll like to know this identity confusion exists in teh first place. Are they still issuing paper DL's, or if you say you "left it at home" they take your word for who you are?

Sounds lame to me. And they're treating the symptoms, not the cause.

Fern

I think they're trying to come up with any reason they can to get you to give them your fingerprints.

Now this is a loval PD, so I'd say their motives are 'solve simple, local crime' and not something overtly sinister. In reality, when it comes to giving up your identity to your government, it's already sinister.

That's what I think.

 

[piasabird]

So what if the person is here illegally. Cant afford to have a record of that.

You already gave up your identity to get a drivers license or a job. What exactly is sinister about that?

I guess you will be turning down your social security because it is sinister to give up your identity???

What about taxes?

You can not even get unemployment insurance without giving up your identity.

 

[bctbct]

"Police say it's meant to protect you -- in case the person they're citing isn't who they claim to be. But not everyone is sold on that explanation."

I guess they dont have Polaroids in Wisconsin?

 

[bamacre]

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

 

[woodie1]

In Texas they take your prints when you get your license. Passports and DLs are forged all the time. If they want your print to prove who you are when they issue a ticket what's the harm.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: woodie1
In Texas they take your prints when you get your license. Passports and DLs are forged all the time. If they want your print to prove who you are when they issue a ticket what's the harm.

It's none of their business. For all you "I have nothing to hide" people out there, do you have curtains over your windows? Blinds? If so I suggest you remove them.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: woodie1
In Texas they take your prints when you get your license. Passports and DLs are forged all the time. If they want your print to prove who you are when they issue a ticket what's the harm.

It's none of their business. For all you "I have nothing to hide" people out there, do you have curtains over your windows? Blinds? If so I suggest you remove them.

You are a real trip.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: woodie1
In Texas they take your prints when you get your license. Passports and DLs are forged all the time. If they want your print to prove who you are when they issue a ticket what's the harm.

It's none of their business. For all you "I have nothing to hide" people out there, do you have curtains over your windows? Blinds? If so I suggest you remove them.

You are a real trip.

Not in this case.

I guess the lesson here is that in Texas, the protests should have started when they fingerprinted for licences.

You haven't got any respect for the freedoms citizens of our countries fought and died to obtain and protect.

So do you have curtains, or not?

 

[BoomerD]

I don't see any problem here. First of all, the gov't has has my prints since I enlisted in 1970, they have them as a result of a couple of arrests, Kahleeforneeya takes my thumbprint everytime I renew my driver's license, I've had to use my thumbprint when cashing checks for many years.
COULD this be an underhanded way to get prints of people to compare to a criminal database? I suppose so, but then again, that's not necessarily a bad thing...unless you might be guilty of some kind of crime...
For those of you who say this is unlawful...please state what law or laws are being broken.
Please state where that right of privacy is listed. While I personally believe we SHOULD be entitled to at least a certain modicum of privacy, I DO NOT know of any place where it's guaranteed as a right. (yes, there are some bits of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are often quoted as such...but not in so many words. Interpretatiton is the key, and can go either way on vague statutes and phrases.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
It seems that if you are pulled over in Green Bay, Wisconsin, you will be required to be finger printed. This IMO infringes on my right to privacy as given to us from the Constitution.

Well, no,,, it reads that if you are ticketed, you will be required.........



A strict constitutionalist would never put himself in a position to get ticketed.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
It seems that if you are pulled over in Green Bay, Wisconsin, you will be required to be finger printed. This IMO infringes on my right to privacy as given to us from the Constitution.

Well, no,,, it reads that if you are ticketed, you will be required.........

True. But I still believe that gives them no right to finger print me. The damned license is good enough.

A strict constitutionalist would never put himself in a position to get ticketed.

Well thats open to interpretation. What if this "strict consititutionalist" did no wrong? What if it was the tyranny of state that ticketed him? Or even, if he just made a mistake and an officer caught him? People make mistakes all the time, should we be treated as property of the state because of a mistake? And really the argument is not about the "strict constitutionalst", its not about a group of individuals that believe a certain way, its the rights given to each and every person.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
It seems that if you are pulled over in Green Bay, Wisconsin, you will be required to be finger printed. This IMO infringes on my right to privacy as given to us from the Constitution.

Well, no,,, it reads that if you are ticketed, you will be required.........

True. But I still believe that gives them no right to finger print me. The damned license is good enough.

A strict constitutionalist would never put himself in a position to get ticketed.

Well thats open to interpretation. What if this "strict consititutionalist" did no wrong? What if it was the tyranny of state that ticketed him? Or even, if he just made a mistake and an officer caught him? People make mistakes all the time, should we be treated as property of the state because of a mistake? And really the argument is not about the "strict constitutionalst", its not about a group of individuals that believe a certain way, its the rights given to each and every person.

You have to respect the constitution for what it is, not what you want it to be. If there is no precident that allows the state of wisconson to fingerprint you, there is a method of relief for you within the constitution. It is called due process.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
It seems that if you are pulled over in Green Bay, Wisconsin, you will be required to be finger printed. This IMO infringes on my right to privacy as given to us from the Constitution.

Well, no,,, it reads that if you are ticketed, you will be required.........

True. But I still believe that gives them no right to finger print me. The damned license is good enough.

A strict constitutionalist would never put himself in a position to get ticketed.

Well thats open to interpretation. What if this "strict consititutionalist" did no wrong? What if it was the tyranny of state that ticketed him? Or even, if he just made a mistake and an officer caught him? People make mistakes all the time, should we be treated as property of the state because of a mistake? And really the argument is not about the "strict constitutionalst", its not about a group of individuals that believe a certain way, its the rights given to each and every person.

You have to respect the constitution for what it is, not what you want it to be. If there is no precident that allows the state of wisconson to fingerprint you, there is a method of relief for you within the constitution. It is called due process.

This is true, but sadly I'm losing more faith in our judiciary system by the day. I don't think I'm alone in that either. Another topic here about entrapment is an example.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
It seems that if you are pulled over in Green Bay, Wisconsin, you will be required to be finger printed. This IMO infringes on my right to privacy as given to us from the Constitution.

Well, no,,, it reads that if you are ticketed, you will be required.........



A strict constitutionalist would never put himself in a position to get ticketed.

A strict consitutionalist would also understand that they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Now I do not know how tickets read in other states but in CA it's says that by signing the ticket you are not admitting to guilt.

So if you haven't be proven guilty of a crime and you haven't admitted to committing a traffic violation then I do not understand how they can request a fingerprint. So unless they have read you your rights and arrested you yeah could they make this demand upon you.? Being that you have not gone through the judicial system and have not received your due process of law yet then there would be no requirement for them to demand a finger print period. Though I could be wrong and I am open to listening to the other side here.

 

[Nitemare]

I'd give them one finger, but they are not fingerprinting it.

Never been fingerprinted and not going to unless I have to get security clearance somewhere.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
I'd give them one finger, but they are not fingerprinting it.

Never been fingerprinted and not going to unless I have to get security clearance somewhere.

:thumbsup: