Tattoos offer a wealth of information gleaned through a simple visual examination. This visualization can help police evaluate the tattoo’s location, design, colors, and any other physical characteristics to identify a person. Tattoos are also helpful in identifying a corpse where more traditional tools such as facial features or fingerprints are unsuitable. Criminals are known to cut off hands, feet, or heads to hinder traditional identification methods. They may also bury, dump, or otherwise attempt to mutilate the body. Tattoo identification overcomes these obstacles.
In recent times, tattoos have become more “mainstream.” Many people wear tattoos as symbols of their past and present ethos. Others select tattoos for personal reasons. They often signify something significant in the recipient’s life, whether it be the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, song lyrics, or a slogan that the person finds meaningful. Similarly, some tattoo their bodies to display their individuality or just because they like the aesthetics of a tattoo on their skin. There is even a medical justification for obtaining a tattoo. It can hide imperfections on the skin. The body art can cover scars, stretch marks, or cellulite. For example, some women elect to obtain “mastectomy tattoos” after breast cancer surgery.
Tattoos are also proving to be a valuable method for identification in forensics. They frequently provide helpful information, such as gang affiliation, religious beliefs, prior convictions, and years spent in jail. Digital technology now provides the police with the ability to identify individuals by taking an image of their tattoos and differentiating the bearers from others who have the same body art. This method is dubbed “Tattoo Recognition Technology” (“TRT”), and it is an emerging field in biometrics.
The police use tattoos to identify suspects, and prison officials employ body markings to recognize gang members. While more than forty-five million Americans have tattoos, these inkings can provide vital information in the criminal justice system. For instance, if a suspect refuses to provide their name or uses an alias, tattoos can help law enforcement learn the truth. If more than one person has the same name, body art can help tell them apart. Even a witness who catches a glimpse of a tattoo during a crime can describe it to a sketch artist who can then run the drawing through a tattoo database. The possibilities are endless.
TRT, however, raises a host of legal issues. The software is still in its infancy, and the legal issues involved with this technology have not yet been fully explored. Questions include privacy concerns, the law of search and seizure, freedoms of expression and religion, racial profiling, and the Fifth Amendment. The Constitution, federal and state laws, and court decisions provide tattooed individuals with ample avenues to challenge identification technologies in court. Will these challenges derail or slow down technological advances in tattoo recognition software as a crime-solving tool? That chapter has not yet been written.
The full article in its original form can be found here.
Samuel D. Hodge, Jr. is a professor at Temple University where he teaches both law and forensic medicine courses. He has written six medical/legal books and two legal texts.
John Meehan is an associate with Blank Rome, LLP and a graduate of the Temple University Beasley School of Law.