The Vermont Supreme Court has overruled a lower court’s decision that a judge could order anyone charged with a misdemeanor in Vermont to be fingerprinted.
Vermont law states that a misdemeanor defendant who has not already provided fingerprints can only be required to submit them for “good cause shown.”
The appeal came to the high court after a lower court found that that standard had been met for the defendant in question simply because Vermont participates in the Interstate Index Identification System, a federal database of criminal records that requires the submission of fingerprints.
In its decision, the Vermont Supreme Court noted that in the lower court’s ruling, it essentially created a blanket rule allowing fingerprinting in all of the state’s misdemeanor cases.
“This is counter to the Legislature’s direction, and we therefore reverse the trial court’s imposition of the condition,” the high court’s decision states.
The defendant in the case was charged with one count of disorderly conduct. At his arraignment, the state asked the court to impose four conditions of release: that he come to court when directed, keep a current phone number and address on file, not engage in criminal behavior, and “report to the Brattleboro PD for the taking of fingerprints and photographs.”
His attorney contested the fourth condition, stating that since the charge was for disorderly conduct, and since the fingerprints weren’t taken previously, his client should not be subject to that requirement.
“I mean, for people without a record it’s a really big deal,” the attorney said, though they noted that they didn’t know whether or not the client had a record.
The judge said that they had discussed this issue with the defense counsel “a number of occasions over the past couple of weeks,” and then proceeded to rule in the state’s favor, because of Vermont’s participation in the Interstate Identification Index.
“Apart from pointing to Vermont’s participation in the III System, the trial court made no factual findings suggesting that particularized good cause for fingerprinting exists in defendant’s case,” the Supreme Court decision states.
However, the high court found that the III System does not undermine the conclusion that Vermont law “unambiguously” requires an individualized showing of good cause for the court to order fingerprinting at a misdemeanor arraignment.
In the case of felony offenses, conversely, or when a person is a fugitive from the law, police need not find “good cause,” and are permitted to take fingerprints at the time of an arrest, summons, or citation. Fingerprinting is also required if they are imprisoned as a result of a misdemeanor charge.
The Supreme Court’s ruling found that submission of fingerprints for every misdemeanor charge is not a requirement of participation in the III System.
“In fact, the Department of Justice regulations relating to the III System state that ‘criminal history record information maintained in the III System . . . shall include serious and/or significant adult and juvenile offenses.’ Nothing in the Compact requires the state to do away with its statutory standards for when a person may be fingerprinted,” the decision states.
