By Patrick Mcardle
[email protected]
A Vermonter facing a misdemeanor criminal charge is not always obligated to provide fingerprints to the state, according to a Vermont Supreme Court decision released Friday.
The decision was based on an appeal from Timothy Grant, who was charged with disorderly conduct in Windham County. The decision does not say when Grant was arraigned.
Grant objected to a request by prosecutors that he report to the Brattleboro Police Department to have his fingerprints recorded and his photo taken.
The Vermont Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Beth Robinson, said the trial court agreed to the state’s request for fingerprints without making any finding about Grant’s case having special circumstance that would give the trial judge reasons particular to Grant or his case that would allow an order to collect fingerprints.
Instead, the trial court only mentioned Vermont’s participation in the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, and the Interstate Identification Index, or Triple I, which requires that records entered into the system include fingerprints.
The Windham Court stayed its requirement for Grant to give fingerprints while the case was pending before the Vermont Supreme Court.
Grant’s attorney argued that the Legislature had not removed the language from state statutes that required “good cause” for ordering fingerprints in a misdemeanor case.
Robinson wrote Vermont’s current statute for taking fingerprints “clearly and unambiguously requires a court to find particularized good cause” before ordering a defendant charged with a misdemeanor to provide fingerprints.
The decision said the high court rejected a prosecutor’s argument that the justice’s interpretation of the law might mean some defendants never get fingerprinted or that there is no harm in collecting fingerprints from defendants because the state’s policy is to destroy the records if the defendant is found not guilty. Robinson called both arguments policy questions for the Legislature.
The good cause requirement is different than the statute in other circumstances. For instance, an officer must take fingerprints when someone is facing a felony charge or has been arrested as a fugitive from justice.
“Thus, in certain circumstances, the Legislature clearly intended to mandate or authorize fingerprinting in every case. But at an arraignment for a misdemeanor, the presumption is that a defendant may not be fingerprinted, and it is the state’s burden to show good cause for fingerprinting,” Robinson wrote.
Robinson said the state’s top court rejected the Windham judge’s ruling because it implied that good cause exists in every case because of the state’s participation with the Triple I system.
“Submission of fingerprints for every misdemeanor charge is not a requirement of participation in the III system and the state does not argue that it is,” the decision said.
Robinson points out that Department of Justice regulations says the system should include information about people who have “serious and/or significant adult and juvenile offenses.”
The decision said the Legislature acted to join the compact in 2000 and again in 2010 but pointed out that in both cases, the lawmakers did not change the state’s fingerprinting policy.
“Vermont’s entry into the III System does not undermine this conclusion. And the state’s policy arguments in support of a blanket rule cannot overcome an unambiguous statute. The state’s remedy lies with the Legislature,” Robinson wrote.
As your daily newspaper, we are committed to providing you with important local news coverage for Sullivan County and the surrounding areas.
