Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/22/2006 11:24:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 11:25:26 AM EDT by IAMLEGEND]
Pulled over in Kansas? Get ready to show your license, registration — and fingerprints

linkeroo

If you are stopped by police in Kansas, don’t be surprised if the officer pulls out a little black box and takes your fingerprints.
The gadget allows officers to identify people by fingerprints without hauling them to the police station.
Over the next year the Kansas Bureau of Investigation will test 60 of the devices with law enforcement agencies around the state. State officials said similar tests are being planned for New York, Milwaukee and Hawaii.
“This is definitely new,” said Gary Page, Overland Park Police Department crime lab. “It’s been talked about, but as far as I know they are not in use anywhere in the metro.”
The tests in Kansas are part of a bigger $3.6 million upgrade to the KBI’s statewide fingerprint database, unveiled Tuesday by the KBI and Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline.
■ The system:
Called the Automatic Fingerprint Identification System, it is a statewide database of more than 10 million fingerprints taken from people arrested in Kansas. The Missouri Highway Patrol maintains a similar database. Both systems link to the FBI fingerprint database.
■ How it works:
In Kansas, 54 law enforcement agencies have traded the ink-and-paper fingerprinting method for biometric imaging, which electronically scans a digital image of the print. Sixty Missouri agencies use biometric scanning. Police also can scan the fingers of corpses and people they arrest to match them against prints in the system. Results are obtained in seconds instead of hours. The inked cards still used by some smaller departments are also scanned into the statewide systems.
■ Why upgrade?
Kansas could no longer locate replacement parts or anyone to service the old system, which was launched in 1990 and upgraded in 1998. The first phase was funded with a $752,000 homeland security grant. The KBI is applying for similar grants to pay the balance. All upgrades should be completed by January 2007.
■ The portable devices:
Police place a person’s two index fingers on a screen. Wireless technology sends the image to the database for comparison. Prints scanned in the field will not be stored.
■ What else is new:
The system will analyze palm prints, which were stored but could not be read before. The system also will store mug shots and pictures of scars, tattoos and other identifying marks.

----------------------
Prints scanned in the field will not be stored... [Dr. Evil] Riiiight...[Dr. Evil]
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:27:57 AM EDT
The power of the state increases, the rights of the citizens decrease.

IBTUAFWTTIAGI

In Before The Un-American Fucktards Who Think This Is A Good Idea
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:29:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 11:31:10 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

If try fingerprint people just for being pulled over, I imagine that would be challenged under a "search and seizure" constitutional challenge.

But, if it is just a faster way of running prints on people they would have been allowed to haul off an fingerprint anyway, then good for them. Saves time, for the busy lawbreaker, like a drivethrough.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:30:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 11:31:28 AM EDT by IAMLEGEND]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
If try fingerprint people just for being pulled over, I imagine that would be challenged under a "search and seizure" constitutional challenge.




I just wanted to quote that because normally your English usage is excellent...for a foreigner anyway.


ETA: Damn! I didn't get the original in time...but it's still jacked up!
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:31:18 AM EDT
I can see this being challenged, as forcing prints from someone could fall under search and seizure without warrant or arrest.

So they're doing this for ID purposes? I though that's what the driver's license was for..
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:31:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
If try fingerprint people just for being pulled over, I imagine that would be challenged under a "search and seizure" constitutional challenge.




I just wanted to quote that because normally your English usage is excellent...for a foreigner anyway.



DOH!

I even edited it, to add something, and never even noticed.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:35:15 AM EDT
From the article, it looks like it's just something they're using on people they arrest. Just an upgrade from the ink-and-paper system and it allows prints to be taken in the field before they're hauled downtown. I don't think this is a big issue.

Now if they start printing everyone who gets pulled over for a bad brake light, it's going to get ugly.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:36:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
So they're doing this for ID purposes? I though that's what the driver's license was for..


And those get counterfeited.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:36:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I can see this being challenged, as forcing prints from someone could fall under search and seizure without warrant or arrest.

So they're doing this for ID purposes? I though that's what the driver's license was for..



Probably another step to get around fake IDs and to serve as a warrant check. AFIS is a pretty cool system (never used a roadside version though)
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:38:14 AM EDT
You know...if they used it to check immigration status and kicked out illegals I might be buyin' it.

Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:39:09 AM EDT


yeah, and sometimes fingerprints aren't 100%. maybe we should start checking DNA too.



Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:39:09 AM EDT
This is Bullshit!! Talk about a violation of you 4th amendment rights.

Oh, but of course I forgot, silly me, the government is our friend.........
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:39:43 AM EDT
Jeez louise.

Can KS get any gayer? Seriously??
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:40:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

yeah, and sometimes fingerprints aren't 100%. maybe we should start checking DNA too.






Care to share how you know that a verifiable print has been shared by two people?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:42:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

yeah, and sometimes fingerprints aren't 100%. maybe we should start checking DNA too.






Care to share how you know that a verifiable print has been shared by two people?



care to share where i said a verifiable print was shared by two people?

i was making a sarchastic suggestion anyhow...


Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:43:22 AM EDT
We've had AFIS for years. Carry your driver's license and you'll never see it. Get arrested and you'll never get that nasty ink on your hands.

Of course, where would ARFCOM be without it's daily "The police state is coming !!! Prepare for Armegeddon!!!" posts?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:44:39 AM EDT
This will not last long...

We have something called the 4th amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures from the federal gov't, and the 14th amendment which applies the Bill of Rights to the states. if there is not a lawful arrest or warrant, this is not constitutional.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:45:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sader762:
This is Bullshit!! Talk about a violation of you 4th amendment rights.

Oh, but of course I forgot, silly me, the government is our friend.........



Don't know a damn thing about fingerprints, police procedures, AFIS or the 4th Amendment do you?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:47:52 AM EDT
My prints are in the system as well a my DNA..

DNA so as to identify me if I get blown to a million tiny bits..
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:49:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
We've had AFIS for years. Carry your driver's license and you'll never see it. Get arrested and you'll never get that nasty ink on your hands.

Of course, where would ARFCOM be without it's daily "The police state is coming !!! Prepare for Armegeddon!!!" posts?



well we already knew how YOU would feel about this
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:51:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

yeah, and sometimes fingerprints aren't 100%. maybe we should start checking DNA too.






DNA is less specific than a set of fingerprints.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:54:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

yeah, and sometimes fingerprints aren't 100%. maybe we should start checking DNA too.






Care to share how you know that a verifiable print has been shared by two people?



care to share where i said a verifiable print was shared by two people?

i was making a sarchastic suggestion anyhow...





You said prints are not verifiable. Absent some factor making the print unreadable, they are very much " 100 % ".
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:58:11 AM EDT
Maybe I'm operating on minimul brain cells today but where did it say they would finger print during normal traffic stops?

I thought it made it sound like they could finger print in the field when they make an arrest.

Maybe I need some coffee?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:58:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

yeah, and sometimes fingerprints aren't 100%. maybe we should start checking DNA too.






...and since thats not perfect either, why dont we implant chips into everyone at birth so they can just scan you and see who you are. If your not a criminal you have nothing to hide, right? I mean its for your safety, think of the children

Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:00:00 PM EDT
They already have my DL,everything thing they need to know is right there.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:00:41 PM EDT
I'm sure illegals will be immune to this......
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:01:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:
You know...if they used it to check immigration status and kicked out illegals I might be buyin' it.




+1 Another case of selective law enforcement.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:01:39 PM EDT
I saw one of those on COPS in Neveda. They caught a guy who violated his parole, he escaped and there was a warrant out for his arrest for over a year. He didn't give his name so they fingerprinted him on the spot. He's back in the slammer.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:01:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:02:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
We've had AFIS for years. Carry your driver's license and you'll never see it. Get arrested and you'll never get that nasty ink on your hands.

Of course, where would ARFCOM be without it's daily "The police state is coming !!! Prepare for Armegeddon!!!" posts?



well we already knew how YOU would feel about this



Of course, that works both ways. As soon as I saw the title I knew who would be posting and exactly what they would say.

It's funny as hell really, a system that's been in widespread use (along with DNA for that matter) for over a decade, and the first mention of it on GD drives tinfoil guys to a frenzy.

For all you guys foaming at the mouth about 4th Amendment etc, care to explain WHY you think it's a violation?

(This should be good)
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:03:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
We've had AFIS for years. Carry your driver's license and you'll never see it. Get arrested and you'll never get that nasty ink on your hands.

Of course, where would ARFCOM be without it's daily "The police state is coming !!! Prepare for Armegeddon!!!" posts?



There is a difference between automatically fingerprinting everyone and just fingerprinting those who cannot show i.d. IMHO the Texas system is fine if its just for those without i.d.

More importantly, the database had better NOT include state bar records. Once they know I'm a lawyer there is no way I'm getting out of the ticket.

Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:05:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 12:52:59 PM EDT by bullyforyou]

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

yeah, and sometimes fingerprints aren't 100%. maybe we should start checking DNA too.






Care to share how you know that a verifiable print has been shared by two people?



care to share where i said a verifiable print was shared by two people?

i was making a sarchastic suggestion anyhow...





You said prints are not verifiable. Absent some factor making the print unreadable, they are very much " 100 % ".



that pretty much proves my very general statement right there, but there really isn't any need to debate this. it was a J-O-K-E.



Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:08:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:
that pretty much proves my very general statement right there, but there really isn't any need to debate this. it was a J-O-K-E.


I don't see where it proves anything, but okkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:08:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 50cal:

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

yeah, and sometimes fingerprints aren't 100%. maybe we should start checking DNA too.






Edit that please. Some bonehead will read it and think it's a good idea.




Don't look now, but we already do. WHERE have you guys been?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:08:22 PM EDT
Is that for every stop?


Are the pirnts stored if you come back "clean"?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:08:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 12:16:42 PM EDT by Jarhead_22]
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:11:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
Is that for every stop?


Are the pirnts stored if you come back "clean"?



The article stated the prints arent stored in any case (with the road unit).
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:14:31 PM EDT
About two years ago I was printed twice within a few months.. Once was ink down at the PD, once was digital through a private firm (Sagem Morpho), doing background checks. Of the two, the ink and paper PD prints took less time even if one included the time to Gojo the ink off. The digital prints were done on a supremely shitty system that must've taken 7 tries per finger to get right.

Right or wrong, I hope the KS cops got a better system than those jokers were using.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:35:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
If try fingerprint people just for being pulled over, I imagine that would be challenged under a "search and seizure" constitutional challenge.




I just wanted to quote that because normally your English usage is excellent...for a foreigner anyway.



DOH!

I even edited it, to add something, and never even noticed.




Link Posted: 3/22/2006 9:05:37 PM EDT
I see the same idiots still haven't bothered to learn the difference between the 4th and 5th Amendments. 4th pertains to searches and seizures, 5th to self-incrimination. Not that either are involved here.

this now makes it 562 times the sky has fallen this year.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:16:40 PM EDT
i'll burn off my finger prints before i let someone take them "just because"
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:24:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bushmaster1:
i'll burn off my finger prints before i let someone take them "just because"



Nobody's doing it "just because" Burn, slice, dice or boil your fingers, whatever is still there is considered a fingerprint regardless. Scar tissue still leaves a pattern.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:27:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

yeah, and sometimes fingerprints aren't 100%. maybe we should start checking DNA too.






I won't have a problem with that as long as the lady cop is cute
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:37:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

yeah, and sometimes fingerprints aren't 100%. maybe we should start checking DNA too.






Care to share how you know that a verifiable print has been shared by two people?


What I think he means is a false positive match. I setup a system using some of the best equipment and software that exists now, and I've had about four dozen false positive matches with a user population of about 3,000 with around 100,000 total scans. It uses Biometrika optical fingerprint scanners with software from Neurotechnologija. You will have a much worse rate of false positive matches with the 10 million population of fingerprints they're using.z
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:49:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By bushmaster1:
i'll burn off my finger prints before i let someone take them "just because"



Nobody's doing it "just because" Burn, slice, dice or boil your fingers, whatever is still there is considered a fingerprint regardless. Scar tissue still leaves a pattern.


True but while you can still get a good fingerprint with ink and paper, damaged skin can make it impossible for those optical fingerprint scanners they're using to get a good scan. From trying four different high-end optical scanners, I found that they worked pretty well for office workers, but for the textile mill workers and women that worked in a sewing plant that the scanners didn't work well enough to get anywhere close to a usable scan. Fingertips that were simply damaged from use was enough damage to beat the system. Also, if the skin was damaged after the original fingerprint was taken, then it is less likely to match.

I'm afraid more money will be wasted on these devices when a few stories are published about the very few times they worked rather than much more common case of when they failed.z
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:58:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2006 12:07:58 AM EDT by wyv3rn]

The first phase was funded with a $752,000 homeland security grant. The KBI is applying for similar grants to pay the balance. All upgrades should be completed by January 2007.


Over THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS of "homeland security" tax dollars spent already on this system, with more to come. By the time they are finished it will probably be TWO MILLION or more. And that's just the actual money spent on the system, not accounting for government overhead. So exactly how many terrorist attacks will be prevented by this large expenditure abuse of tax payer dollars? How many finger prints of known, wanted and living in the United States terrorists' does the Kansas LE have in its database? Zero.

Is this what our government has in mind for "homeland security"? Security against what, it's own citizenry? All I'm seeing is a bigger, more powerful police state striving for greater control of its subjects (or atleast that's how they seem to view us). Wasteful spending of precious, limited resources. Don't we still have unprotected mass transit systems, mass transit jet liners, and ocean ports? Wasn't Michael Chertoff (sp?) just today complaining about 14,000 chemical plants in the U.S. that don't all have adequate protection? What about our inadequately protected crops and water ways? Don't we have a multi-hundred-billion-dollar budget deficit and oh.. I don't know a 9 trillion dollar debt?
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 12:42:55 AM EDT
Hmm, and to think I already get a right thumb print from people driving w/o a license......

Brian
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 1:02:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2006 1:09:43 AM EDT by MurdockTheCrazy]

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
We've had AFIS for years. Carry your driver's license and you'll never see it. Get arrested and you'll never get that nasty ink on your hands.

Of course, where would ARFCOM be without it's daily "The police state is coming !!! Prepare for Armegeddon!!!" posts?



well we already knew how YOU would feel about this



Of course, that works both ways. As soon as I saw the title I knew who would be posting and exactly what they would say.

It's funny as hell really, a system that's been in widespread use (along with DNA for that matter) for over a decade, and the first mention of it on GD drives tinfoil guys to a frenzy.

For all you guys foaming at the mouth about 4th Amendment etc, care to explain WHY you think it's a violation?

(This should be good)



You should read our Bill of Rights again, sir.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



It's that simple, you have no right to search my person or my property, unless you have a search warrant.

My fingers are part of my person, thus, you may not search them without a warrant.

Fingerprinting is searching them, you cannot deny that.

The only right you really have, with respect to demanding identification, is if someone is driving a motor vehicle, in which case you may ask for their drivers license, only to confirm that they are certified to drive a motor vehicle.

Otherwise, unless you arrest someone, or unless you have a search warrant, you have no right to any identification from them, period.

.

.

If you're talking about fingerprinting people after they have been arrested for a crime, that's one thing. But if you are talking about fingerprinting them for any reason you damn well please, then you are violating the Constitution of the United States.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 1:25:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MurdockTheCrazy:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
We've had AFIS for years. Carry your driver's license and you'll never see it. Get arrested and you'll never get that nasty ink on your hands.

Of course, where would ARFCOM be without it's daily "The police state is coming !!! Prepare for Armegeddon!!!" posts?



well we already knew how YOU would feel about this



Of course, that works both ways. As soon as I saw the title I knew who would be posting and exactly what they would say.

It's funny as hell really, a system that's been in widespread use (along with DNA for that matter) for over a decade, and the first mention of it on GD drives tinfoil guys to a frenzy.

For all you guys foaming at the mouth about 4th Amendment etc, care to explain WHY you think it's a violation?

(This should be good)



You should read our Bill of Rights again, sir.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



It's that simple, you have no right to search my person or my property, unless you have a search warrant.

My fingers are part of my person, thus, you may not search them without a warrant.

Fingerprinting is searching them, you cannot deny that.

The only right you really have, with respect to demanding identification, is if someone is driving a motor vehicle, in which case you may ask for their drivers license, only to confirm that they are certified to drive a motor vehicle.

Otherwise, unless you arrest someone, or unless you have a search warrant, you have no right to any identification from them, period.

.

.

If you're talking about fingerprinting people after they have been arrested for a crime, that's one thing. But if you are talking about fingerprinting them for any reason you damn well please, then you are violating the Constitution of the United States.




Crank back on the drama button. No one is doing anything for "any reason they damn well please".
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 7:17:02 AM EDT
So no response to the rest of his post?
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 8:14:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MurdockTheCrazy:

Otherwise, unless you arrest someone, or unless you have a search warrant, you have no right to any identification from them, period.



Then every state that requires a thumbprint/fingerprint for a drivers license or licensing for child care employees etc is guilty of violating your civil rights.....

The key to the 4th Amendment is that pesky word 'unreasonable' - kind of leaves things open to interpretation. Let me guess, you also believe a LEO is required to have a search warrant to draw blood in a DUI case.

Brian
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top