Opinion ID: 167957
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Purpose for arresting and finger-printing Defendant

Text: 56 Accordingly, in determining whether the fingerprint evidence in this case should be suppressed, we must determine the original purpose for arresting and later fingerprinting Defendant; that is, was Defendant fingerprinted merely as part of a routine booking or processing procedure or was the illegal arrest in part for the purpose of obtaining unauthorized fingerprints so Defendant could be connected to additional alleged illegal activity. The precise circumstances under which Defendant was arrested and his fingerprints taken are not clear from the record. 57 The Government asserts on appeal that Defendant's fingerprints were taken while he was being processed for having illegally reentered the country; however, Agent Armendariz testified, and the district court found, only that [Defendant]'s fingerprints were obtained at the Border Patrol Station and were used to connect [him] to his immigration record and prior criminal record. Although it is clear how the fingerprints evidence was ultimately used, there is no evidence in the record before us to support the Government's assertion that the illegal arrest was not in part for the purpose of obtaining Defendant's fingerprints to link him to criminal activity. Because, on the record before us, we do not know whether the illegal arrest was purposefully exploited for the objective of obtaining Defendant's fingerprints, we remand for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. See Garcia-Beltran, 389 F.3d at 865 (remanding to the district court for factfinding in a similar case challenging the admissibility of fingerprint evidence where the factual record regarding the fingerprinting of the defendant was incomplete). 10