Is there a way to avoid fingerprinting when getting my Driver's License?

They have no right? According to who?

You and the two idiots above me are clueless.

It's in the contract you sign when you get your license, you agree to getting fingerprinted. You do not have the right to refuse. The only person who would refuse is of course someone with something to hide.

So no, there is no way out of it.

PS - ARE YOU INSANE? You need to learn a little more about laws and rights. After reading your other questions, you're clearly just a little snowflake who whines about people looking at you cross eyed. Your rights are not violated in any shape or form by giving fingerprints and again, read up on what you have to do when you get a license. If you want one, you sign the document and on it, it states you will give your fingerprints. If you don't want your license, don't sign it. After all, you've got a lot of paintballing to do.

And you'd think if it was a violation of your rights, SOMEONE somewhere would have brought this up - but oddly, you're the only one. You're not real bright, are you?

Fingerprints For Drivers License

This Site Might Help You.

RE:

Is there a way to avoid fingerprinting when getting my Driver's License?

I am very nervous about getting fingerprinting, as they have no right to have it. Is there any way I can object to this and still get my license? Please help :)

If giving a fingerprint is part of the process for getting a DL in your state, then you are poop out of luck. You'll have to give one to get your license.

inform the dmv that your finger prints are personal property, and they will need a warrent to obtain them. it worked for me. I never signed any agreement to give any state my finerprints. if they say you did, demand to see the agreement.

the Real ID act will be inforced in december of this year..most states ruled it was unconstitutional, but the federal government will require finerprints, your social security to be your real ID number, and an RFID chip will be placed in the card. every american citizen will required to have this card as identification if they are to live within us boarders.

welcome to 1984

what state do you live in? i've never heard of any state that requires that. however, it shouldn't be a big deal unless you're planning on breaking the law, which i advise against.

No.

You have no constitutional right to have a driver's license. It is, as long has been held, a privilege and not a right and obtaining or renewing a DL may be contingent on the furnishing of fingerprints.

Generally, constitutional challenges to fingerprinting requirements have failed.

The reasons why such challenges have been routinely disallowed by courts were perhaps best expressed by Judge Weinfeld in Thom v. New York Stock Exchange, 306 F. Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y. 1969), aff'd sub nom., Miller v. New York Stock Exch., 425 F.2d 1074 (2d Cir. 1970). In Thom , the plaintiffs brought suit against various brokerage firms, the New York Stock Exchange, and the Attorney General of New York, seeking to show that a New York statute requiring employees of security exchanges and clearing corporations be fingerprinted as a condition of employment was unconstitutional as (1) an invasion of privacy in violation of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) an illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (3) punishment without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) an invidious and irrational discrimination against employees of member firms of national security exchanges, resulting in denial of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Id. at 1004.

In the view of the court, "the questions presented lack the necessary constitutional substance." Id. at 1005. The court specifically rejected the plaintiff's privacy argument that "fingerprints are a system of social control, of intrusion upon one's past and future life, and accordingly, that the state must show strong justification for such an intrusion . . . ." Id. at 1007. Noting the prevalence of fingerprinting requirements, along with other identification requirements, in modern life and law, Thom asserts:

The submission of one's fingerprints is no more an invasion of privacy than the submission of one's photograph or signature to a prospective employer, which the Stock Exchange rules still require. As the Supreme Court in Davis [ v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969)] observed, "Fingerprinting involves none of the probing into an individual's private life and thoughts that an interrogation or search." The actual inconvenience is minor; the claimed indignity, nonexistent; detention, there is none; nor unlawful search; nor unlawful seizure.

Id. at 1009 (footnotes omitted).

Thom also rejects the notion that the fingerprinting requirement implicates the right against self-incrimination:

And even if plaintiffs were to succeed in establishing that the state intended to incorporate these fingerprints into its central criminal identification files to be used as a means of future crime detection, such a procedure does not run afoul of any constitutional prohibitions . . . . The state having presented a valid justification under its police power for the original taking of the prints under reasonable circumstances, their use for future identification purposes, even in criminal investigations, is not impermissible.

Id. at 1011 (footnotes omitted).

A citizen does not relinquish or compromise his rights by allowing an impression of his fingerprints to be taken because a citizen has no more constitutional right to refuse to give such an impression than he has to refuse to give his signature or have his photograph taken for the same purpose. The fingerprint requirement is as constitutionally permissible as are a host of such statutory requirements from jurisdictions throughout the nation, many of which Judge Weinfeld listed in an appendix to the Thom opinion and which have not diminished in the intervening twenty-seven years. Id. at 1012-13.

The case of a person seeking a driver's license is not analogous to that of an arrested person subject to interrogation, who must under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), be apprised of his right against self-incrimination. Nor does a mere suspicion that such information might at a later time be used to one's detriment implicate the Sixth Amendment. Such an argument was made, to no avail, in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971). Writing for the court, Justice Douglas responded:

Appellee's argument assumes the existence of a periphery of the Self- Incrimination Clause which protects a person against incrimination not only against past or present transgressions but which supplies insulation for a career of crime about to be launched. We cannot give the Self-Incrimination Clause such an expansive interpretation.

Id. at 606-07.

You want a driver's license. You have to provide your fingerprints.

What State does fingerprinting.

I have not heard of one.

where do you live, ive never been fingerprinted