Get Pulled over in Kansas...get fingerprinted on the spot... - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Get Pulled over in Kansas...get fingerprinted on the spot... (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 3/23/2006 8:59:34 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
So no response to the rest of his post?

Nope.....not going to deal with the tinfoil drama.

Posted: 3/23/2006 9:17:20 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
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.

It will be allowed, any challenge to the 4th amendment will be allowed. Just as it is allowed for the police to take blood samples for DUI when the citizen doesn't weant to give them.

Posted: 3/23/2006 11:13:19 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

It will be allowed, any challenge to the 4th amendment will be allowed. Just as it is allowed for the police to take blood samples for DUI when the citizen doesn't weant to give them.

Oh, do share your theory on why a court order is required for a blood draw in a DUI....

Brian

Posted: 3/23/2006 11:30:53 AM EDT

[#4]

10 million fingerprints taken from people arrested in Kansas

2000 census data has a total poulation of 2,688,418. So everybody in Kansas has been arrested at least three times?

Just not sure what that quote means...

Posted: 3/23/2006 11:33:17 AM EDT

[#5]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:
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?

JohninAustin,

Actually Johnboy I know quite alot about those things. See unlike you I have spent years of study acquiring a Masters in Political Science. I also happen to teach Texas Politics at a local college. You see, I am a seeker of the truth. I don't idly sit by and accept what the government tells me.

You on the other hand are always there defending police/government actions as lawful no matter what the offense. The may be lawful, but I tell you these types of freedom abuses are not legal. The problem is that people like you (those in authority) give these actions your stamp of approval, your validation. The sheeple see that and say "well jeez the police say it's ok so it must be." This is wrong.

We have what are called inalienable rights. This simply means that I, you, and everyone else have rights that cannot be taken away by the rule of law, by authority, by an individual, or GIVEN up. These rights exist whether the majority want them to or not.

The attitude that "well I'm doing nothing wrong so it must be ok, and besides the police are just after criminals" is an attitude of self destruction and moral collapse. If you want to live in a state like that fine, that is your opinion. But do us a favor and leave these boards. Your kind do nothing to support my ideas of freedom and Second Amendment protections.

And yes I saw your

, that is a clever way of covering up an attack.............

Posted: 3/23/2006 11:37:49 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:

It will be allowed, any challenge to the 4th amendment will be allowed. Just as it is allowed for the police to take blood samples for DUI when the citizen doesn't weant to give them.

Oh, do share your theory on why a court order is required for a blood draw in a DUI....

Brian

A court order isn't required in some states, as the blood is viewed as "evidence". Therefore there is no right to self-incrimination, or being secure in your person.

Posted: 3/23/2006 11:40:56 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted:

Don't know a damn thing about fingerprints, police procedures, AFIS or the 4th Amendment do you?

JohninAustin,

Actually Johnboy I know quite alot about those things. See unlike you I have spent years of study acquiring a Masters in Political Science. I also happen to teach Texas Politics at a local college. You see, I am a seeker of the truth. I don't idly sit by and accept what the government tells me.

Tell me again how your qualified to preach about fingerprints, police procedures, AFIS or the 4th Amendment.... Wow, a Masters in PoliSci and a professor, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here since you said "teach", of Texas Politics. I'm guessing you are a nationally recognized expert on all the above then.

Brian

Posted: 3/23/2006 12:08:09 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
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

I don't know how many comparison points yopur software uses. Sounds like you need to upgrade to something a little more sophisticated.

Posted: 3/23/2006 12:17:01 PM EDT

[#9]

Will the ATF accept a print out from these machines for NFA transfers???

Posted: 3/23/2006 12:32:56 PM EDT

[#10]

We have "FAST ID" machines in the local jail.

It a keypad with an appx 1"X1" scan window.

The only data entered on the keypad is the user's sign on.

It then ask for a scan of each pointer finger seperately.

If it finds a match, usually takes less than 5 minutes, it displays a state ID number.

Haven't seen any mismatches. But I have seen people get scanned and listed as "no match" who do have fingerprints on file.

It saves a lot of time, when there are questions about a person's ID, and you can get them ID'ed by fingerprints in less than 5 minutes. It even saves time because people that know they are about to be scanned often remember their real name, and maybe why they didn't want to divulge it.

Since no data is entered to acompany a scan, name dob etc, saving the print is useless since there is no ID to go with it. It would also make it so if someone that was scanned, and wasn't on file, gave a false name that unverified data would now be entered as their ID. Which would be bad.

I'm just guessing, but I would bet that if you get stopped, and present a DL, you won't go anywhere near the scanner. If you get stopped, have no DL, and recite a names that the DL people says doesn't have DL or ID, you will be on the scanner. Or those times when someone immediately want to fight the cops, and won't give ANY ID, right after he is arrested, he will be scanned, and told his name on the way to jail.

Posted: 3/23/2006 12:43:18 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
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.

well, I'm sure that right there is enough to violate my right to privacy.

TXL

Posted: 3/23/2006 12:47:28 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I'm sure illegals will be immune to this......

Of course. No sense in bothering people who shouldn't be in the country anyway.

Posted: 3/23/2006 12:52:17 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:

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.....

I see my whole point just went right over your head.

No, that's not the case. A drivers license is optional, therefore the state may put whatever identification requirements they want on what you need to accuire a drivers license.

However, I do not have to have a drivers license in the United States. In fact I don't actually need any identification legally, nor do I have to keep it on my person.

Nor do the police have any right to demand any sort of identification from me, unless I am driving a motor vehicle.

They have the right to ask who I am, and I am required by law to tell them, but I am not required to give them any papers, period.

You need to study the case law, this has been taken to court many times, and my side is the one who wins.

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

I see once more, you are unable to understand.

Driving a car is not a consitutional right, thus the state may put requirements on it. From having to get licenses to doing DWI/DUI checks whenever they wish. However these requirements may only be to confirm that the person in question is qualified to operate said vehicle.

That Is The Case Law On This Subject, It Isn't Me Saying It, It's The Supreme Court.

However, if one is not driving a motor vehicle, the police have no right to any identification, period. They do have a right to know my name, but they do not have a right to search my person or demand a license that I am not legally required to have outside of a car.

But of course, that's just a bunch of tinfoil-hatism, that's why the Supreme Court has upheld this stance

.

Posted: 3/23/2006 1:53:20 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

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.....

I see my whole point just went right over your head.

I see the sarcasm and tongue in cheek of my response went right over your head as well.

No, that's not the case. A drivers license is optional, therefore the state may put whatever identification requirements they want on what you need to accuire a drivers license.

However, I do not have to have a drivers license in the United States. In fact I don't actually need any identification legally, nor do I have to keep it on my person.

Nor do the police have any right to demand any sort of identification from me, unless I am driving a motor vehicle.

You might want to check that statement. A certain Nevada case comes to mind. CA has PC 647(e) - other states probably have similar sections.

They have the right to ask who I am, and I am required by law to tell them, but I am not required to give them any papers, period.

True, no paper ID is required.

You need to study the case law, this has been taken to court many times, and my side is the one who wins.

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

I see once more, you are unable to understand.

Driving a car is not a consitutional right, thus the state may put requirements on it. From having to get licenses to doing DWI/DUI checks whenever they wish. However these requirements may only be to confirm that the person in question is qualified to operate said vehicle.

That Is The Case Law On This Subject, It Isn't Me Saying It, It's The Supreme Court.

However, if one is not driving a motor vehicle, the police have no right to any identification, period. They do have a right to know my name, but they do not have a right to search my person or demand a license that I am not legally required to have outside of a car.

You might want to review your case law soon. You are correct in that there is no requirement for a picture ID/DL if you are not driving a vehicle.

But of course, that's just a bunch of tinfoil-hatism, that's why the Supreme Court has upheld this stance .

I love free internet legal advice - it's worth exactly what you paid for it.

Brian

Posted: 3/23/2006 2:29:20 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

You might want to check that statement. A certain Nevada case comes to mind. CA has PC 647(e) - other states probably have similar sections.

You should check that case yourself. The Supreme Court ruled that people under the Nevada law are required to tell the police who they are. They are not required to show the police any type of identification [two different things]. The exception being that if one is driving a car, they may ask for a driver license.

True, no paper ID is required.

No paper, and no plasic, so saith the Supreme Court.

You might want to review your case law soon. You are correct in that there is no requirement for a picture ID/DL if you are not driving a vehicle.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

If I may quote:

"In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document."

Which is exactly what I've said the whole damn time.

Posted: 3/23/2006 2:29:42 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Pulled over in Kansas? Get ready to show your license, registration — and fingerprints

Prints scanned in the field will not be stored... [Dr. Evil] Riiiight...[Dr. Evil]

+1

Posted: 3/23/2006 2:33:28 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:

You might want to check that statement. A certain Nevada case comes to mind. CA has PC 647(e) - other states probably have similar sections.

You should check that case yourself. The Supreme Court ruled that people under the Nevada law are required to tell the police who they are. They are not required to show the police any type of identification [two different things]. The exception being that if one is driving a car, they may ask for a driver license.

True, no paper ID is required.

No paper, and no plasic, so saith the Supreme Court.

You might want to review your case law soon. You are correct in that there is no requirement for a picture ID/DL if you are not driving a vehicle.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

If I may quote:

"In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document."

Which is exactly what I've said the whole damn time.

And if the supplied name does not come back on file or otherwise verifiable, the law also allows us to take the person into custody so they may be properly identified.

Posted: 3/23/2006 2:41:28 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Jeez louise.

Can KS get any gayer? Seriously?? hr

Hey, at least we're getting ccw now.

Posted: 3/23/2006 2:56:56 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

You might want to check that statement. A certain Nevada case comes to mind. CA has PC 647(e) - other states probably have similar sections.

You should check that case yourself. The Supreme Court ruled that people under the Nevada law are required to tell the police who they are. They are not required to show the police any type of identification [two different things]. The exception being that if one is driving a car, they may ask for a driver license.

True, no paper ID is required.

No paper, and no plasic, so saith the Supreme Court.

You might want to review your case law soon. You are correct in that there is no requirement for a picture ID/DL if you are not driving a vehicle.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

If I may quote:

"In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document."

Which is exactly what I've said the whole damn time.

And if the supplied name does not come back on file or otherwise verifiable, the law also allows us to take the person into custody so they may be properly identified.

That is only if someone is driving a motor vehicle. Otherwise they may not be detained as long as they give their name, no matter if it is in a database or not.

If you're just walking down the street, you need no ID of any sort, and you may not be held for that reason.

Posted: 3/23/2006 4:31:59 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
We've had AFIS for years. Carry your driver's license and you'll never see it.

I don't doubt you, John. But the weird thing: I got stopped in downtown Austin one morning about 3 months ago (Clickit or Ticket!

), didn't have my DL or my CHL with me. The officer asked for them, I told him, "I have my insurance card, but I left my wallet at home. Here's my DL number <rattle off DL number> and name and address."

Aside from his line of BS that I HAD to carry my CHL everywhere all the time (even when unarmed), I didn't get any flack from him at all. He told me that driving with no DL was "not so smart", but let me off with a warning.

No fingerprint scan either. Is this something that all LEOs can do? He was a motorcycle cop, if that means anything.

Posted: 3/23/2006 4:33:59 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
That is only if someone is driving a motor vehicle. Otherwise they may not be detained as long as they give their name, no matter if it is in a database or not.

If you're just walking down the street, you need no ID of any sort, and you may not be held for that reason.

We are talking about drivers; don't start inserting other scenarios here

Posted: 3/23/2006 4:44:35 PM EDT

[#22]

Blood and semen. It is the only sure way of identification. Which will you prefer to give?

Posted: 3/23/2006 4:48:02 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
We've had AFIS for years. Carry your driver's license and you'll never see it.

I don't doubt you, John. But the weird thing: I got stopped in downtown Austin one morning about 3 months ago (Clickit or Ticket! ), didn't have my DL or my CHL with me. The officer asked for them, I told him, "I have my insurance card, but I left my wallet at home. Here's my DL number <rattle off DL number> and name and address."

Aside from his line of BS that I HAD to carry my CHL everywhere all the time (even when unarmed), I didn't get any flack from him at all. He told me that driving with no DL was "not so smart", but let me off with a warning.

No fingerprint scan either. Is this something that all LEOs can do? He was a motorcycle cop, if that means anything.

He just recognised you as a normal guy and not a scumbag. Ne need for fingerprints since you knew your DL number.

Posted: 3/23/2006 4:57:33 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:
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?

JohninAustin,

Actually Johnboy I know quite alot about those things. See unlike you I have spent years of study acquiring a Masters in Political Science. I also happen to teach Texas Politics at a local college. You see, I am a seeker of the truth. I don't idly sit by and accept what the government tells me.

You on the other hand are always there defending police/government actions as lawful no matter what the offense. The may be lawful, but I tell you these types of freedom abuses are not legal. The problem is that people like you (those in authority) give these actions your stamp of approval, your validation. The sheeple see that and say "well jeez the police say it's ok so it must be." This is wrong.

We have what are called inalienable rights. This simply means that I, you, and everyone else have rights that cannot be taken away by the rule of law, by authority, by an individual, or GIVEN up. These rights exist whether the majority want them to or not.

The attitude that "well I'm doing nothing wrong so it must be ok, and besides the police are just after criminals" is an attitude of self destruction and moral collapse. If you want to live in a state like that fine, that is your opinion. But do us a favor and leave these boards. Your kind do nothing to support my ideas of freedom and Second Amendment protections.

And yes I saw your , that is a clever way of covering up an attack.............

I taught American History and Criminal Justice At a community college for 5 years myself. It's a total joke. "Warm and breathing" is about the only qualification needed for a Poli Sci professor. You know squat about the legal and technical aspects in MY profession.

Posted: 3/23/2006 6:10:36 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
No fingerprint scan either. Is this something that all LEOs can do? He was a motorcycle cop, if that means anything.

He just recognised you as a normal guy and not a scumbag. Ne need for fingerprints since you knew your DL number.

Good enough for me!

Posted: 3/23/2006 9:07:47 PM EDT

[#26]

Let me try and clarify this for the hyper-aluminum guys. I'll try and keep it simple.

WHY you are fingerprinted has never changed.

HOW You are fingerprinted now no longer requires an ink pad.

You can stop sandbagging your windows now.

Posted: 3/23/2006 10:46:24 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

That is only if someone is driving a motor vehicle. Otherwise they may not be detained as long as they give their name, no matter if it is in a database or not.

Give an officer a bogus name and he most certainly can detain you to investigate. At least in CA, an officer can book you if satisfactory ID is not presented - doesn't necessarily mean a DL.

If you're just walking down the street, you need no ID of any sort, and you may not be held for that reason.

You would be wrong in CA under certain situations - don't know other states laws - see Ca Penal Code 647(e). Assuming the officer has no legit reason to detain you, you would be correct - known as a consenual contact.

Posted: 3/23/2006 11:10:42 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

well, I'm sure that right there is enough to violate my right to privacy.

TXL

That's the same right to privacy that allows abortions, right??

Posted: 3/23/2006 11:17:18 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

They aren't "seizing" your fingers.

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.

So what do you do when they have no license, or otherwise refuse to identify themselves? Is your solution to let them go since by your reasoning it is illegal/unconstitutional to now print them for ID??

Posted: 3/23/2006 11:54:36 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Give an officer a bogus name and he most certainly can detain you to investigate. At least in CA, an officer can book you if satisfactory ID is not presented - doesn't necessarily mean a DL.

Who said anything about bogus names? Newsflash for you: There are many Americans whose names are not in any database that the state government can access. There are quite a few people who were opted out of Social Security at birth by their parents. There are many people without drivers licenses or state issued photo IDs too. Both of those situations are legal. About the only thing every American has to have is a birth-cert. Hardly something that is in a searchable database, in most states.

You would be wrong in CA under certain situations - don't know other states laws - see Ca Penal Code 647(e). Assuming the officer has no legit reason to detain you, you would be correct - known as a consenual contact.

I thought we were talking about the United States...

Posted: 3/24/2006 12:00:48 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

They aren't "seizing" your fingers.

No, but they are searching them.

Does that basic concept escape you?

So what do you do when they have no license, or otherwise refuse to identify themselves? Is your solution to let them go since by your reasoning it is illegal/unconstitutional to now print them for ID??

Try to spot the key words in my statement "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,"

If someone is driving, the police have the right to ask for identification. If they cannot provide it, that becomes subject to the state law on the matter, notice that that isn't the issue I am talking about.

The point I am making is that, if you aren't driving a vehicle, you do not have to produce any sort of ID, period.

Some people have disagreed with that, and that is the issue I am debating.

Posted: 3/24/2006 12:16:16 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:]

Who said anything about bogus names? Newsflash for you: There are many Americans whose names are not in any database that the state government can access. There are quite a few people who were opted out of Social Security at birth by their parents. There are many people without drivers licenses or state issued photo IDs too. Both of those situations are legal. About the only thing every American has to have is a birth-cert. Hardly something that is in a searchable database, in most states.

Can't say that I"ve run into a situation where a citizen didn't have 'something' that helped identify them - be it verbal info, credit cards, SSN card, etc

I thought we were talking about the United States...

Last time I checked CA is still part of the United States.....Isn't it TX that is special and considers itself some sort of independant entity?

Posted: 3/24/2006 12:17:40 AM EDT

[#33]

Fingerprinting you is not a search. At least STUDY the topic matter before posting.

Posted: 3/24/2006 12:23:53 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:]

Who said anything about bogus names? Newsflash for you: There are many Americans whose names are not in any database that the state government can access. There are quite a few people who were opted out of Social Security at birth by their parents. There are many people without drivers licenses or state issued photo IDs too. Both of those situations are legal. About the only thing every American has to have is a birth-cert. Hardly something that is in a searchable database, in most states.

Can't say that I"ve run into a situation where a citizen didn't have 'something' that helped identify them - be it verbal info, credit cards, SSN card, etc

I thought we were talking about the United States...

Last time I checked CA is still part of the United States.....Isn't it TX that is special and considers itself some sort of independant entity?

Not at the time being. We are, however, the only state which still has a legal right to leave the union.

Posted: 3/24/2006 12:25:56 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Fingerprinting you is not a search. At least STUDY the topic matter before posting.

search ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sûrch)
v. searched, search·ing, search·es
v. tr.
To make a thorough examination of; look over carefully in order to find something; explore.

Now, are you honestly going to tell me the fingerprinting someone isn't searching their finger for a... guess what, fingerprint?

Posted: 3/24/2006 12:35:22 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Fingerprinting you is not a search. At least STUDY the topic matter before posting.

search ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sûrch)
v. searched, search·ing, search·es
v. tr.
To make a thorough examination of; look over carefully in order to find something; explore.

Now, are you honestly going to tell me the fingerprinting someone isn't searching their finger for a... guess what, fingerprint?

If you are going to argue searches, you need to use legal definitions. Get back to me after you're done your research. You're just a waste of time better spent cruising ammo websites.

Posted: 3/24/2006 12:43:00 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fingerprinting you is not a search. At least STUDY the topic matter before posting.

search ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sûrch)
v. searched, search·ing, search·es
v. tr.
To make a thorough examination of; look over carefully in order to find something; explore.

Now, are you honestly going to tell me the fingerprinting someone isn't searching their finger for a... guess what, fingerprint?

If you are going to argue searches, you need to use legal definitions. Get back to me after you're done your research. You're just a waste of time better spent cruising ammo websites.

A legal definition made one hundred years after the last of the founding fathers had died? Sorry, that argument holds little water with me.

Should I make the point that the legal definition of 'Militia' is now the National Guard? Meaning the right to bare arms only applies to the... err... government?

I'd much rather go with a common english definition from the time the Constitution was written than a legal definition written by people four generations later.

Posted: 3/24/2006 3:00:23 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
[A legal definition made one hundred years after the last of the founding fathers had died? Sorry, that argument holds little water with me.

Should I make the point that the legal definition of 'Militia' is now the National Guard? Meaning the right to bare arms only applies to the... err... government?

I'd much rather go with a common english definition from the time the Constitution was written than a legal definition written by people four generations later.

Legal definitions are more important in court than some dictionary definition.
Nor could the FF possibly envision edvery scenario and frame their opinions appropriately. It is up to US to determine how a particular action fits into what they wrote, not to guess how they wouild have viewed that act. There is a difference.

Posted: 3/24/2006 3:03:28 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Who said anything about bogus names? Newsflash for you: There are many Americans whose names are not in any database that the state government can access. There are quite a few people who were opted out of Social Security at birth by their parents. There are many people without drivers licenses or state issued photo IDs too. Both of those situations are legal. About the only thing every American has to have is a birth-cert. Hardly something that is in a searchable database, in most states.

.

100 years ago you might have been right. Nowadays, very doubtful that theres anyone who is not in one of any number of databases.

Posted: 3/24/2006 3:10:24 AM EDT

[#40]

Murdoc, you woulnd't by chance be a member of the ROT?

Posted: 3/24/2006 4:46:21 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Not at the time being. We are, however, the only state which still has a legal right to leave the union.

Well there went your credibility...

www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp

Another Texas-related legend holds that the Texans negotiated an annexation treaty which reserved to them the right to secede from the Union without the consent of the U.S. Congress, but the terms of Texas' annexation contain no such provision.

Posted: 3/24/2006 4:53:30 AM EDT

[#42]

Wow!!

The battle of the Constitutionalists vs. the Neocons continues...

Posted: 3/24/2006 9:33:16 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Fingerprinting you is not a search. At least STUDY the topic matter before posting.

search ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sûrch)
v. searched, search·ing, search·es
v. tr.
To make a thorough examination of; look over carefully in order to find something; explore.

Now, are you honestly going to tell me the fingerprinting someone isn't searching their finger for a... guess what, fingerprint?

When a fingerprint is taken the person taking the print isn't "searching" for anything on the finger - anybody with the slightest bit of common sense knows exactly what/where a fingerprint is. I'm transferring the print onto usable media.

Brian

Posted: 3/24/2006 10:06:44 AM EDT

[#44]

Shit, just superglue your fingers together and they won't be able to scan them.

Don't youse guys gots no smarts?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Get Pulled over in Kansas...get fingerprinted on the spot... (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us