Franklin County Criminal Law Casebook

Reproduced with permission from:
Timothy E. Pierce and the Franklin County Public Defender Office

State v. Hartman 93 Ohio St. 3d 274, 283-284, 2001-Ohio-1580 -- Admission of digitally enhanced fingerprint evidence approved relying on State v. Hayden (1998), 90 Wash App. 100, 950 P.2d 1024.
State v. Moore, Franklin App. No. 03AP-145, 2003-Ohio-5342 -- Handwriting examiner used the defendant's signatures on seven fingerprint cards as exemplars of his known handwriting. No error since there was no direct reference to the commission of previous crimes. Dubious curative instruction said to obviate need to declare a mistrial.
Hayes v. Florida (1985), 470 U.S. 811, 817 -- Absent probable cause for arrest, judicial authorization or consent, taking a suspect to the police station for purposes of fingerprinting is beyond the scope of a Terry stop and frisk, and the results are to be suppressed. Also see Davis v. Mississippi (1969), 394 U.S. 721. Compare In re Order Requiring Fingerprinting of a Juvenile (1989), 42 Ohio St. 3d 124
United States v. Wade (1967), 388 U.S. 24 -- Compelling a defendant to display identifying physical characteristics, including fingerprints, is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
United States v. Thomann (1st Cir. 1979), 609 F. 2d 560 -- (1) Defendant lacked standing to challenge taking of wife's fingerprints. (2) Use of wife's fingerprints was not a violation of husband-wife privilege.
State v. Miller (1977), 49 Ohio St. 2d 198 -- Syllabus: "Fingerprints corresponding to those of the accused are sufficient proof of his identity where the circumstances show that such prints, found at the scene of the crime, could only have been impressed at the time of the commission of the crime."
State v. Muldrow (1983), 10 Ohio Misc. 2d 11 -- Refusal to be fingerprinted as a part of routine identification process while in custody is not a violation of the obstructing official business statute.
State v. McQueen (1997), 124 Ohio App. 3d 444 -- Court faulted for presenting an unrepresented defendant with the ultimatum that he either stipulate identity as the person in court on a previous occasion or have his fingerprints rolled in open court.
State v. Reid (March 10, 1981) Franklin Co. App. Nos. 80AP-88, 89, unreported (1981 Opinions 495) -- Prosecutor may obtain additional exemplars once trial has commenced. But see dissent and Crim. R. 16 as to notice of tests. Also see United States v. Peters (10th Cir. 1982), 687 F. 2d 1295.

Publishing Information

Published by Timothy E. Pierce
Copyright © Franklin County Public Defender and Timothy E. Pierce, 2015
Contents may not be duplicated without express permission.