Glendale Fingerprint Law Fought in Court

Attorneys for an environmental group argued in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday that a 45-year-old Glendale law requiring that solicitors for charities from outside the city be fingerprinted is unconstitutional.

In a suit filed more than three years ago, Greenpeace, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, charges that the city law requiring such fingerprinting violates state and federal constitutional rights of privacy, equal protection and freedom of speech.

Glendale officials, however, say the law protects residents from fraudulent canvassers.

Judge William Huss is expected to decide the issue in a written ruling within a few weeks.

Attorney Dean Hansell, representing Greenpeace, said on Tuesday that the law has had “a chilling effect” on his group and other charitable organizations because some members fear that they would be targeted for surveillance by law enforcement officials. He said the rule is degrading and creates a taint of criminality.

Hansell also said the city gives copies of the fingerprints to anyone who requests them, invading privacy rights.

However, Dennis H. Schuck, Glendale senior assistant city attorney, argued that the city has the right to regulate charitable solicitations to prevent “the quick-scam type of artist” from approaching residents for money.

The city law originally was designed to protect residents from World War II-era bogus solicitors claiming to represent charities and veterans organizations. Fingerprinting is not required for fund-raisers representing local charities, canvassers who do not ask for money or door-to-door salesmen.

Hansell said the law prevents Greenpeace and other organizations from freely distributing environmental or political messages in Glendale. No other city in Southern California imposes similar restrictions, he said.

Another Los Angeles Superior Court judge in 1986 refused to grant a request from Greenpeace for a preliminary injunction against Glendale, ruling that the city has the right to require fingerprinting “to protect its citizens from fraudulent solicitation.”

The California Supreme Court, also in 1986, reaffirmed earlier court decisions when it ruled that the Department of Motor Vehicles could require fingerprinting as a valid way to guard against fraudulent applications and thus promote highway safety. But the court also said that fingerprints are private and copies cannot be given out indiscriminately.

Huss on Tuesday suggested that Greenpeace attorneys might better have argued that the privacy of fingerprints should be protected rather than challenging the city’s right to fingerprint Greenpeace members.