Document: 394 U.S. 721 89 S.Ct. 1394 22 L.Ed.2d 676 John DAVIS, Petitioner,v.State of MISSISSIPPI. No. 645. Argued Feb. 26 and 27, 1969. Decided April 22, Melvyn Zarr, New York City, for petitioner. G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Jackson, Miss., respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner was convicted rape sentenced to life imprisonment by a jury in Circ it Court Lauderdale County, Mississippi. The only issue before us is whether fingerprints obtained from petitioner should have been excluded evidence as product detention which illegal under Fourth Fourteenth Amendments. 2 occurred on evening December 2, 1965, at victim's home Meridian, victim could give no better description her assailant than that he Negro youth. Finger palm prints found sill borders window through apparently entered constituted other lead available outset police investigation. Beginning 3, period about 10 days, Meridian police, without warrants, took least 24 youths headquarters where they were questioned briefly, fingerprinted, then released charge. also interrogated 40 or 50 either headquarters, school, street. Petitioner, 14-year-old youth who had occasionally worked yardboy, brought 3 after being fingerprinted routinely questioned. Between 7, several occasions—sometimes his car, times headquarters. This questioning related primarily investigation potential suspects. Several during this same exhibited hospital room. A officer testified these confrontations purpose sharpening providing 'a gauge go size color.' did not identify any confrontations. On 12, drove 90 miles city Jackson confined him overnight jail. State conceded oral argument there neither warrant nor probable cause arrest. next day, petitioner, yet afforded counsel, lie detector test signed statement.1 He returned 14, while so confined, second time. That 14 prints, together with 23 still suspicion, sent Federal Bureau Investigation Washington, D.C., comparison latent taken house. FBI reported petitioner's matched those window. subsequently indicted tried rape, fingerprint admitted trial over timely objections be an unlawful detention. Mississippi Supreme sustained admission affirmed conviction. 204 So.2d 270 (1967). We granted certiorari. 393 821, 149, 21 93 (1968). reverse. 4 At outset, we find merit suggestion Court's evidence, because its trustworthiness, subject proscriptions Amendments.2 Our decisions recognize exception rule illegally seized inadmissible trial, however relevant trustworthy may item proof. exclusionary fashioned sanction redress deter overreaching governmental conduct prohibited Amendment. To make would fatally undermine purposes. Thus, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 643, 655, 81 1684, 6 1081 (1961), held 'all searches seizures violation Constitution authority, state court.' (Italics supplied.) Fingerprint comprehensive rule. agree adopt conclusion Appeals District Columbia Circuit Bynum United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 370, 262 F.2d 465, 467 (1958): 5 'True, can distinguished statements given They articles prisoner's possession. Both similarities differences each type others are apparent. But all three decisive common characteristic something evidentiary value public authorities caused arrested person yield them If one such proscribed, token proscribed.' turn question used unreasonable seizure proceeded mistaken premise introduced brief 3. In fact, both parties agree, following 12 legality arrest determined However, here, ensuing based therefore constitutionally invalid. argues, nevertheless, invalidity prevent affirming validly obtained, argued, 'it difference practical legal sense (fingerprint) card F.B.I. comparison.'3 It does light objectives rule, see supra, 371—372, F.2d, 468—469,4 but need decide since concluded obtained. 7 makes claim voluntarily accompanied officers willingly submitted fingerprinting. State's candidly admits '(a)ll Police possi ly known time * amount *.'5 however, require cause. Two rationales position suggested. First, argued investigatory rather accusatory stage thus requiring that, least, sole obtaining 8 true intention charging crime far making primary focus their argue Amendment apply fundamentally misconceive purposes Investigatory unlimited numbers innocent persons harassment ignominy incident involuntary Nothing more clear meant wholesale intrusions upon personal security our citizenry, termed 'arrests' 'investigatory detentions.'6 made explicit last Term Terry 392 1, 19, 88 1868, 1878, 1879, 20 889 (1968), when rejected 'the notions come into play limitation if stop short called 'technical 'full-blown search." 9 Detentions loss constraints arguable, unique nature fingerprinting process, detentions might, narrowly defined circumstances, comply even though traditional sense. See Camara Municipal Court, 387 523, 87 1727, 18 930 Detention constitute much less serious intrusion types detentions. Fingerprinting involves none probing individual's private thoughts marks interrogation search. Nor employed repeatedly harass individual, set person's prints. Furthermore, inherently reliable effective crime-solving tool eyewitness identifications confessions abuses improper line-up 'third degree.' Finally, danger destruction fingerprints, limited unexpectedly inconvenient For reason, general requirement authorization judicial advance seem admit context. occasion case, determine requirements met circumscribed procedures obtaining, course criminal investigation, individuals whom attempt here employ might co ply Amendment: young Negroes authorized officer; unnecessarily required undergo two sessions; merely subjected interrogation. judgment reversed. 11 Reversed. FORTAS part consideration decision case. 13 HARLAN, concurring. I join reservation. states dictum scheduled convenient citizen, context.' Ante, page. cannot concur sweeping proposition. There falling 'dragnet' compelled submission absence warrant, leave open. 15 BLACK, dissenting. 16 brutal woman, committed own home. Fingerprints left home, clinching bringing once expanding reach judicially declared ostensibly resting Amendment, holds thereby reverses and, duty, began searching morning raped woman originally able describe rapist male. With interrogate number streets, homes, station, permitted way. among made. again 14. record show man slightest objection. Apparently cooperated efforts out rape. case ever-expanding list cases has widely blowing up Amendment's scope original authors hard put creation.* most unnecessary expansion chief reliance decision, 465. think high interest administration justice, new appraisal language history cut down intended size. Such action would, believe, cities safer place men, women, children life. 17 dissent reversal. STEWART, 19 do disagree detained follow trial. 'evidence' conventional weapons stolen goods be. Like color man's eyes, height, very physiognomy, tips fingers inherent unchanging man. And physical impressions fingertips exactly endlessly reproduced. deal confession wrongfully property seized—so tainted forever against defendant. deal, instead, identically reproduced lawfully subsequent trial.** believe doctrine 1081, requires useless gesture reversal statement 'trustworthy' evidence—such guns, narcotics, gambling equipment—which Brief Respondent 8. Government controversy introduction particular 'much ado little,' another properly used. argument: 'It bears repeating matter concern imposition sanctions implementing guarantee Neither fact itself equivalent conveniently wholly proper way militates overriding consideration. entirely irrelevant relatively easy government prove guilt using important thing administering law understand must way.' U.S.App.D.C., 468—469. Bynum's retrial connected used, convicted. 107 109, 274 767 (1960). relies various approve citizens investigating crime. Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 477 478, 86 1602, 1629—1630, 694 (1966); Culombe Connecticut, 568, 635, 1860, 1896, 1037 (concurring opinion) (1961). reiterated settled principle right request answer questions concerning unsolved crimes compel answer. See, e.g., Bumper North Carolina, 391 543, 1788, 797—another case; Spinelli 410, 584, 637; Aguilar Texas, 378 108, 84 1509, 1723; Recznik City Lorain, 166, 342, 317 Griswold 381 479, 85 1678, 510. ** oath, positively identified assailant. now exists, therefore, ample detain take fingerprints.

Category: 0