That was the Q, was there some systems that can run a name only.
The information is there in the database so there's no reason you couldn't search by name and pull up matching prints if they exist. Whether that function exists on current systems I don't know. I see AFIS run just about every day because they have it installed in the courts here, but I don't handle the software so I couldn't tell you. [
after reading CdwJava's post I'm pretty sure the setups in the courts are for a local database not AFIS. ]
BOR said:
Taking a fingerprinint though IS a search. I don't see how it can be justified on scene, absent being on parole or such. Hayes v. Florida, citing Davis v. Mississippi clearly stated prior judicial authority is needed to compel a fingerprint if a person is not under arrest.
I know you said IF there is lawful justification, but that would take some exigent facts in my mind??
I honestly don't see what either of those cases has to do with this fact pattern. Those deal with known individuals being compelled to give up their prints to be used as evidence against them. The cases hold that the prints should have been suppressed. The cases also hold that in effect there was no exigency because since the person is known, they can make arrangements to obtain their prints any time. Those cases conclude that the proper thing to do would have been for law enforcement to obtain a warrant since they had probable cause that a crime had been committed.
This is completely different than a situation where you are merely trying to identify someone who will not identify themselves. How can this not be considered exigent? You either ID them then and there or you release them and possibly never see them again. You literally have no way of ever furthering your investigation short of patrolling around and hoping to find them again, in which case you are no closer to id'ing them then you were before. You only need reasonable suspicion to detain someone and once detained there are any number of lawful reasons that an officer might have to need their name. If this is just a detention then there is not yet probable cause that an offense has been committed so a warrant is not even an option. This is also not the type of intrusion where the person is being subjected to a search that they can't avoid. In the cases cited they are taking his prints either with consent or with a warrant (if they had done it lawfully.) There is no way to avoid the search. In our situation the person can avoid the search at any time by just saying his name which the officer can then go and verify. Bringing someone in to AFIS them to obtain their ID does not result in any evidence to be used against them. There is nothing being admitted against them, nothing to suppress, unless the detention incidentally lead to a statement or some other evidence that was seized. It is a search and it is a detention and it is an intrusion, but it is not an unreasonable one under the right circumstances.
Tomorrow, if I remember, I will go through my S&S literature and try to pull a TX. case on this.