People v. Davis, Docket No. 4497
| Decision Date | 23 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 4497,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 170 N.W.2d 274,17 Mich.App. 615 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert C. DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
I. Goodman Cohen, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Thomas G. Plunkett, Jr., Pros. Atty., Oakland County, Pontiac, for appellee.
Before T. G. KAVANAGH, P.J., and QUINN and A. C. MILLER, * JJ.
On Application for Rehearing
This is a belated request for a rehearing of the December 19, 1968, decision of this Court 1 based on the ruling of the United States Supreme Court rendered April 22, 1969, in the case of Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676. In both cases the fingerprint identification evidence was crucial. In both cases the fingerprint record of the defendant was originally procured through an earlier detention, but the similarity terminates at this point. In the Mississippi case the detention was part of a dragnet. In the Michigan case it was the result of an arrest on another charge in another county, which was not questioned. While that charge was concluded by the filing and acceptance of a Nolle prosequi, this does not affect the validity of the detention. Furthermore, fingerprints are matters of identification and not incrimination. No testimonial or communicative features are involved. Schmerber v. California (1966), 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908. Fingerprints, like a man's name, heights, color of his eyes, and physiognomy, are subject to non-custodial police inquiry, report, and preservation when reasonable investigation requires, even though probable cause for arrest may not exist at the moment. United States v. Bonnano (S.D.N.Y., 1960) 180 F.Supp. 71.
Request for rehearing denied.
T. G. KAVANAGH, not participating.
* ALLAN C. MILLER, Circuit Judge for the 23rd Judicial Circuit appointed by the Supreme Court for the hearing month of December, 1968, pursuant to § 306 P.A.1964, No. 281.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. Owens, 16977
...(1971); State v. Sefcheck, 261 Iowa 1159, 157 N.W.2d 128 (1968); State v. Haze, 218 Kan. 60, 542 P.2d 720 (1975); People v. Davis, 17 Mich.App. 615, 170 N.W.2d 274 (1969); State v. Proctor, Mo.App. 535 S.W.2d 141 (1976); McCray v. State, 85 Nev. 597, 460 P.2d 160 (1969); State v. Christophe......
-
Johnson v. Vanderkooi
...characteristics such as a fingerprint or a voice print, both of which are constantly exposed to the public"); People v. Davis , 17 Mich. App. 615, 170 N.W.2d 274 (1969) (stating that "[f]ingerprints, like a man's name, height, color of his eyes, and physiognomy, are subject to non-custodial......
-
People v. Williams, Docket No. 12398
...See Pearson v. United States, 389 F.2d 684 (CA 5, 1968); United States v. De Palma, 414 F.2d 394 (CA 9, 1969); People v. Davis, 17 Mich.App. 615, 170 N.W.2d 274 (1969).3 See King v. Pinto, 376 F.2d 593 (CA 3, 1967).4 See People v. Jamerson, 14 Mich.App. 253, 165 N.W.2d 480 (1968). See, gene......
-
People v. Davis, Docket No. 78-2098
...time to prepare for cross-examination. Fingerprinting is a matter of identification and not incrimination. People v. Davis (App. for Reh.), 17 Mich.App. 615, 170 N.W.2d 274 (1969), Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 Permitting an in-court fingerprinting is ......