Understandable. Collecting their fingerprints and DNA would make it really difficult for them to commit crimes, right enough.
UnoriginalWebHandle on
Crazy that a fifth of officers haven’t even had their fingerprints scanned. That should have been SOP for longer than any active police officers have been alive.
Street-Team3977 on
Worth mentioning, the point of this is to precent officer DNA causing confusion at crimes scenes, not to act as a reserve for investigating officers’ offences.
So while it may be used for that purpose (and I suppose the objection is framed from that standpoint), that’s not the justification for it (and actually that would likely not be legal as a standalone justification).
Which makes this a procedural issue, not a misconduct one.
(Also I daresay most of the officers not on file will just either be quite new, or in roles where there’s no chance they’ll be at crime scenes personally).
3 commenti
Understandable. Collecting their fingerprints and DNA would make it really difficult for them to commit crimes, right enough.
Crazy that a fifth of officers haven’t even had their fingerprints scanned. That should have been SOP for longer than any active police officers have been alive.
Worth mentioning, the point of this is to precent officer DNA causing confusion at crimes scenes, not to act as a reserve for investigating officers’ offences.
So while it may be used for that purpose (and I suppose the objection is framed from that standpoint), that’s not the justification for it (and actually that would likely not be legal as a standalone justification).
Which makes this a procedural issue, not a misconduct one.
(Also I daresay most of the officers not on file will just either be quite new, or in roles where there’s no chance they’ll be at crime scenes personally).