## Facts

- Police investigated burglaries at a business and recovered latent fingerprints from objects inside the premises.
- A confidential source implicated Pedro Z., a juvenile, but police lacked probable cause to arrest him.
- A detective went to Pedro’s home, interviewed him in the presence of his mother, and Pedro denied involvement.
- The detective asked Pedro to submit to fingerprinting, stating he did not have to comply but that prints could help “prove his innocence.”
- Pedro agreed and was fingerprinted without a warrant, written consent, or a full explanation of the legal consequences of fingerprinting.
- Pedro and his mother were found to have limited understanding of legal rights and the significance of consent in this setting.
- The fingerprints were matched to latent prints from the burglarized premises, providing the basis for Pedro’s arrest and a juvenile delinquency petition alleging conduct that would constitute burglary if committed by an adult.
- Pedro moved to suppress the fingerprint evidence as the product of an unreasonable search and seizure.

## Issues

1. Whether investigative fingerprinting of a juvenile suspect in these circumstances constitutes a search and seizure governed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Whether the juvenile and parent gave valid, voluntary consent to pre-arrest fingerprinting when police lacked probable cause and framed printing as a means to “prove innocence.”
3. Whether, absent probable cause and absent statutory authorization, police may lawfully obtain a juvenile’s fingerprints prior to arrest for investigative purposes.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to suppress the fingerprint evidence.
- The court held that obtaining the juvenile’s fingerprints for investigative purposes was subject to Fourth Amendment constraints.
- The court found no probable cause existed at the time police obtained the fingerprints, and later-acquired probable cause could not justify the prior intrusion.
- The court ruled the State failed to prove valid, voluntary consent by Pedro or his mother under the totality of the circumstances.
- The court concluded that, with no probable cause, warrant, valid consent, or statutory authority for pre-arrest juvenile fingerprinting, the procedure was unlawful and the fingerprints (and derivative use) were inadmissible.

## Legal Principles

- Investigative fingerprinting is not exempt from the Fourth Amendment; it is a search-and-seizure event requiring probable cause, a warrant, or a recognized exception.
- Consent is an exception only if the State proves consent was freely and voluntarily given under the totality of circumstances; a juvenile’s age, understanding, and the setting of police contact are central to voluntariness.
- Police statements implying cooperation is needed to “prove innocence,” particularly when directed to a juvenile, may negate voluntariness where the juvenile and parent lack meaningful appreciation of the right to refuse.
- Probable cause developed from unlawfully obtained fingerprints cannot retroactively validate the initial fingerprinting, and the exclusionary rule bars use of unlawfully obtained fingerprints and their fruits.
- Absent express legislative authorization, pre-arrest fingerprinting of juveniles for purely investigative purposes is not permitted where constitutional requirements are unmet.

## Conclusion

The Family Court suppressed a juvenile’s fingerprints taken during a pre-arrest home encounter because police lacked probable cause and failed to establish voluntary consent, and no statute supplied authority for investigative fingerprinting of juveniles in those circumstances.


In re Pedro Z., 83 Misc. 2d 166, 372 N.Y.S.2d 442 (Fam. Ct. Kings Cnty. 1975)