McGOVERN v. VAN RIPER, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. William George and Mr. Frank G. Schlosser, for the appellant. Mr. Walter D. Van Riper, Attorney-General ( Mr. Mark Townsend, Deputy Attorney-General, of counsel), for the respondents.

Judges

The opinion of the court was delivered by COLIE, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

William McGovern, sheriff of Hudson County, was indicted for failing to comply with R.S. 53:1-15, which requires sheriffs to take fingerprints and photographs of persons arrested for indictable offenses and forward them promptly to the state bureau of identification. Following the indictment, McGovern filed a bill in the Court of Chancery seeking to enjoin the Attorney-General and other respondents from fingerprinting or photographing him upon his arrest and from forwarding such records unless he was convicted. The Court of Chancery initially granted an interim stay against fingerprinting and photographing, but later vacated this restraint while maintaining an order preventing dissemination of fingerprints and photographs before conviction. McGovern appealed the portion of the order vacating the restraint against fingerprinting and photographing.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether fingerprinting and photographing an accused person before trial and conviction violate rights protected by Article I, paragraphs 1 and 6 of the New Jersey State Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Whether the respondents’ brief contains improper matter warranting suppression from the record.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Fingerprinting and photographing before conviction deprive the appellant of constitutional rights under the state constitution (Article I, paragraphs 1 and 6) and the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal constitution.

Respondents' Arguments

The opinion does not detail specific legal arguments made by the respondents on the constitutional issues.
The respondents filed a brief containing impertinent, scandalous, and contemptuous matter, which the court found objectionable.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bartletta v. McFeeley, 107 N.J. Eq. 141; affirmed 109 N.J. Eq. 241	Lawfulness of fingerprinting and photographing an accused before trial and conviction.	The court relied on this precedent to hold that fingerprinting and photographing prior to conviction do not violate constitutional rights.
United States v. Kelly, 55 Fed. Rep. 2d 67; A.L.R. 122	Usefulness of fingerprints and photographs for recapture of escaped prisoners and detection of second offenders.	Supported the court’s reasoning that the slight interference caused by fingerprinting and photographing is justified by the common interest.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the appellant’s claim that fingerprinting and photographing before trial and conviction infringed constitutional protections. It referenced established precedent in Bartletta v. McFeeley, which upheld the lawfulness of such procedures. The court reasoned that fingerprints and photographs serve important public safety functions, such as recapturing fugitives and identifying repeat offenders. The court found the intrusion minimal and justified by the common interest, concluding that no constitutional violation occurs. Additionally, the court addressed the respondents’ brief, determining it contained improper content and ordered its suppression from the record.

Holding and Implications

The court affirmed the part of the Court of Chancery’s order that vacated the restraint against fingerprinting and photographing the appellant prior to conviction.

The direct effect of this decision is to permit law enforcement to fingerprint and photograph accused persons before trial and conviction without violating constitutional rights. The court also ordered suppression of the respondents’ brief due to its improper content. No new precedent was established beyond the reaffirmation of existing legal principles.

Show full summary ...

WILLIAM McGOVERN, appellant, v. WALTER D. VAN RIPER and CHARLES H.SCHOEFFEL, respondents.

1. The fingerprinting and photographing of an accused person before trial and conviction do not deprive him of rights protected by article I, paragraphs 1 and 6 of the state constitution and by the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal constitution.

2. Respondents' brief contains impertinent, scandalous and contemptuous matter. It will be suppressed and not preserved with the record of the case.

The opinion of the court was delivered by COLIE, J.

William McGovern, the sheriff of Hudson County, was indicted for failure to comply with R.S. 53:1-15 providing that "the sheriffs * * * shall immediately upon the arrest of any person for an indictable offense, * * * take the fingerprints of such person * * * and forward without delay two copies * * * together with photographs * * * to the state bureau of identification." The day following the handing down of the indictment, Mr. McGovern filed a bill of complaint in the Court of Chancery to enjoin the Attorney-General and Acting Prosecutor of Hudson County, Mr. Van Riper, and Charles H. Schoeffel, Superintendent of State Police, their agents and servants "from taking the fingerprints or photographs of the complainant upon his arrest for the misdemeanor for which he now stands charged, and from forwarding the same to the Superintendent of State Police of New Jersey or elsewhere unless and until he stands convicted thereof."

The Court of Chancery made an order to show cause with ad interim stay "from taking the fingerprints and photographs * * * and * * * from forwarding the same to the Superintendent of State Police of New Jersey or to any other person or body." On the adjourned date of the order to show cause, August 6th, 1945, an order was entered that the defendants "desist and refrain from forwarding, disseminating or publishing in advance of conviction, the fingerprints and photographs of the complainant to any person or body whatever unless the complainant shall become a fugitive from justice.

"Further ordered that the ad interim restraint heretofore granted against fingerprinting and photographing the complainant, upon his arrest for the misdemeanors with which he now stands charged, be and the same is hereby vacated and dissolved."

William McGovern appeals to this court from that part of the order of August 6th, 1945, which vacated and dissolved the restraint against fingerprinting and photographing him. No appeal is taken from the restraint against disseminating or publishing the fingerprints and photographs in advance of conviction, and consequently we are not concerned with that phase of the matter.

Appellant argues that fingerprinting and photographing in advance of conviction deprive him of rights protected by article I, paragraphs 1 and 6 of the State Constitution and by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. We do not think this is so. In Bartletta v. McFeeley, 107 N.J. Eq. 141; affirmed, 109 N.J. Eq. 241, it was held to be lawful for the police to photograph or fingerprint an accused person before trial and conviction. Fingerprints and photographs are useful means for the recapture of escaped prisoners and detection of second offenders and the slight interference with the person entailed thereby is well warranted in the common interest. United States v. Kelly, 55 Fed. Rep. 2d 67; A.L.R. 122.

That part of the order under review lifting the restraint against fingerprinting and photographing is affirmed, with costs.

Having examined the case and passed upon the meritorious questions raised by this appeal, we now pass to a consideration of the brief filed on behalf of the respondents. Without quoting at length therefrom, we state categorically that it contains impertinent, scandalous and contemptuous matter. Respondents' brief will be suppressed and not preserved with the record of the case.

Justices Heher and Oliphant and Judge Wells concur in the opinion in the above entitled case, excepting the references to the brief filed on behalf of the respondents.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, COLIE, OLIPHANT, WELLS, RAFFERTY, DILL, FREUND, McGEEHAN, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

McGOVERN v. VAN RIPER