NCJ Number
69104
Journal
LEGAL POINTS Issue: 101 Dated: (1979) Pages: COMPLETE ISSUE
Date Published
1979
Length
4 pages
Annotation
THIS EDUCATIONAL AID DESIGNED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING PROGRAMS REVIEWS LEGAL DECISIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR FINGERPRINTING AND FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE. EMPHASIS IS GIVEN TO CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.
Abstract
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST COMPELLING THOSE ACCUSED BUT NOT YET CONVICTED TO FURNISH FINGERPRINTS FOR USE IN COURT. IN REJECTING ASSERTIONS OF FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, THE COURTS HAVE RELIED ON A SUPREME COURT RULING THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS ONLY AGAINST THE COMPULSION OF COMMUNICATIVE OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE. MOREOVER, NO RIGHT TO COUNSEL EXISTS, AND NO MIRANDA WARNINGS NEED BE GIVEN AN INDIVIDUAL PRIOR TO FINGERPRINTING. THE ADMISSIBILITY OF PROPERLY OBTAINED FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED. FOURTH AMENDMENT PROSCRIPTIONS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES DO NOT PROHIBIT FINGERPRINTING PRIOR TO CONVICTION. ALTHOUGH PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN ARREST IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINGERPRINTING IN EVERY INSTANCE, A WARRANT IS NECESSARY WHERE PROBABLE CAUSE IS ABSENT. FOR EFFECTIVE COURTROOM USE, FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE REQUIRES PROPER STORAGE, AUTHENTICATION, ACCURACY, AND RELIABLE CORROBORATION. THE TRIAL JUDGE GENERALLY DETERMINES THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE FINGERPRINT EXPERT WITNESS AND ALTHOUGH FORMAL TRAINING MAY BE REQUIRED, ACTUAL FINGERPRINT COMPARISON EXPERIENCE IS ESSENTIAL. OVER 50 FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.