Walker v. Lamb

• Decision Date: 28 May 1969
• Citation: 254 A.2d 265
• Parties: Irvin Corbitt WALKER, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Colonel Charles LAMB, Superintendent of State Police, State Highway Department, State of Delaware, Defendant.
• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware

Page 265

254 A.2d 265

Irvin Corbitt WALKER, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Colonel Charles LAMB, Superintendent of State Police, State Highway Department, State of Delaware, Defendant.

Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle County.

May 28, 1969.

Stephen B. Potter, of Sullivan, Potter & Roeberg, Wilmington, for plaintiff.

Fletcher E. Campbell, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendant.

MARVEL, Vice Chancellor.

Defendant, who is Superintendent of the Delaware State Police, has moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint against him and the named government agencies which oversee his official duties of supervising the activities of the Delaware State Police. Such complaint charges that plaintiff was arrested on warrants issued without probable cause on two charges of assault to kill two named State troopers and on one charge of grand larceny. Such charges were later dropped. This action seeks a mandatory injunctive order directing defendant to procure for plaintiff from the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation the original and all copies of plaintiff's fingerprints as well as the return of photographs of plaintiff taken while he was in custody after arrest. Plaintiff also seeks an order directing the production and destruction of such copies of his fingerprints and photographs as now may be in the files of the Delaware State Police or the Delaware Bureau of Investigation. Plaintiff argues that rights personal to him have been violated and that to protect him from harassment as a result of the existence of copies of his fingerprints and photographs now in the hands of law-enforcement authorities his prayers must be granted.

Defendant, as noted above, has filed a motion to dismiss, first for want of jurisdiction, and, alternatively, on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Title 11 Del.C. § 8503 requires the State Police and other law enforcement agencies to transmit fingerprints of '* * * persons arrested for, or suspected of * * *', inter alia, 'An indictable offense,' to the State Bureau of Identification. Title 11 Del.C. § 8506 requires the same action from prison wardens together with such persons' photographs. In addition, Title 11 Del.C. § 8509 forbids the destruction of any identifying information received by the State Bureau of Identification for ten years after a subject has died. In other words, in fingerprinting the plaintiff here, the State Police clearly acted in conformity with the terms of statutory authority. Photographing cannot be distinguished.

Although plaintiff has not expressly attacked the constitutionability of such statutes, he contends that the retention of his photographs and fingerprints constitutes an invasion of his right of privacy. However, it is clear that the retention of identification records by police authorities has historically been viewed as the public interest in that such records tend to promote the safety and welfare of the community as a whole, it being reasoned that any humilation to an individual so finger-printed and photographed, though ultimately found not guilty...