T&T judge to cops: You must destroy info on freed man

Justice Margaret Mohammed

(Trinidad Express) It is unconstitutional and illegal for the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) to retain a person’s photographs and other information in its database if that individual was charged with a criminal offence but later acquitted.

In making that declaration yesterday, a High Court judge directed Police Commissioner Gary Griffith to immediately destroy the information belonging to a man who challenged the section of law that allowed for the retention of the information.

Making the ruling was Justice Margaret Mohammed who was to determine the constitutionality of Section 50(2) of the Police Service Act.

In 2014, Parliament amended section 50 of the Act and effectively empowered the TTPS to take and retain the measurements, photographs and fingerprint information of certain persons.

No specified time was stated for the retention of the measurements and photographs, but specified times were stated for the retention of the fingerprint data.

The amended section states: “Where the measurement or photograph taken under subsection (1) is of a person who has not previously been convicted of a criminal offence and such person is discharged or acquitted by a court, all records relating to the measurement or photograph shall be kept by the Commissioner.

The claim was brought by Keston Felix who was charged in May 2017 with using insulting language to the annoyance of persons and resisting arrest.

After being arrested, he was taken to the Morvant Police Station where he was photographed and his fingerprint impressions taken. He was also asked to provide certain personal information such as his address, place of work and family ties which were recorded.

Two years later, the charges were dismissed but in spite of this, Felix said he was informed by his attorneys that the amendment to the Act allowed the TTPS to retain all of his information since the Police Commissioner had no discretion to destroy it.

He therefore filed the claim contending that the amendment infringed on his constitutional right to a private life.