Identifying an accident victim (Los Angeles, 1950's).

Fingerprints and dental record identification has been around at least that far back.

The car involved would also give investigators a place to start, registration and plates.

Aside from DNA, just about every form of physical evidence around today would have been around then. And there might be a driver's license or other identification. It's not like the 1950s was the stone age.

caw

Car accident would start with the registered owner of the car. Is it that person or does that person indicate someone else known to them was using the car. Is the clothing and body dimensions consistent with that person. If the known driver of the car is consistent with the clothing and body dimensions and identifying marks, positive identification would probably be accepted. Further identification could include a friend/relative identifying the body, or x-rays of bones and/or dental work.

If driver of car unknown (such as a stolen vehicle), identification would be a lot more difficult.

Jim Clark-Dawe

I would imagine if the deceased had a driver's license that matched the vehicle's registration and matched generally the person's height and weight, very few if any jurisdictions would question the identification.

However, when I was 16 my boyfriend was killed in a car accident. His car, his ID, his friend driving, his dad was still asked to identify the body as was one of the other boy's parents. That would be ~1968.

Neither of the two were unrecognizable though. If a body is unrecognizable I don't think the medical examiner or coroner asks a significant other to view the deceased.

You need to understand that this all depends on the person calling this. Presented with identical information, some people will call it and others will want more. In other words, what works in one jurisdiction might not work in another jurisdiction.

Realistically you do the least amount of work to make you comfortable with your decision. X-rays are expensive and tracking down dentists and doctors can be difficult.

Personal identification is subject to several factors. Among others is whether the person doing the identification likely to be able to actually do it. Some people freak massively upon seeing dead bodies. Other people don't care.

I've seen identifications made with the material you list. I've heard of those items not being enough.

It's very rare for a positive identification to be re-visited. Exhumation of a body requires a court order. It would need fairly compelling evidence to warrant looking at an identification again.

Jim Clark-Dawe

shizu said:

What kind of identification would be acceptable in that situation?

Click to expand...

Look in the victim's wallet or purse and check the drivers license. Car accident victims are easily identified. If you need the victim to be anonymous or identification to be delayed, don't use a car accident. Maybe a bystander hit by a car while carrying no id, but not a driver.

Jeff

WeaselFire said:

Look in the victim's wallet or purse and check the drivers license. Car accident victims are easily identified. If you need the victim to be anonymous or identification to be delayed, don't use a car accident. Maybe a bystander hit by a car while carrying no id, but not a driver.

Jeff

Click to expand...

Is it compulsory to carry your drivers licence while driving in the USA? In the UK you don't have to and I quite often won't carry mine with me (whether driving, walking or going by bus or train) unless I need ID or proof of address for something else. So to me it's not an obvious conclusion that a pedestrian is more likely to not have ID on them than a driver.

The last time I needed to take my drivers licence anywhere was when I flew to Scotland because you need a proper form of ID to board the plane and my passport's expired. At the time I thought it was because of the risk of terrorism but this thread is now making me think it's so they can identify the bodies if the plane crashes. :/

In the US, you are supposed to have your license with you when driving. But even if you ignore the license requirement, the registration of the car indicates the legal owner. Police will use that to start identifying the driver when the driver is obviously deceased at the scene of the accident and extrication of the driver is going to take a long time. In that case it may be impossible to get to the driver's license for quite a bit. Another scenario is when a woman's pocketbook is ejected from the car and can't be found.

Planes require IDs because of terrorism. Often if a plane crashes what you're going to find are body parts. IDs for plane crashes these days start with the passenger list, and frequently go to DNA.

Jim Clark-Dawe

neandermagnon said:

Is it compulsory to carry your drivers licence while driving in the USA? In the UK you don't have to and I quite often won't carry mine with me (whether driving, walking or going by bus or train) unless I need ID or proof of address for something else. So to me it's not an obvious conclusion that a pedestrian is more likely to not have ID on them than a driver.

The last time I needed to take my drivers licence anywhere was when I flew to Scotland because you need a proper form of ID to board the plane and my passport's expired. At the time I thought it was because of the risk of terrorism but this thread is now making me think it's so they can identify the bodies if the plane crashes. :/

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you're absolutely meant to have your license on you while driving in the UK, same as in the U.S. If you're pulled over, they ask for the same stuff there they do here -- license, insurance cert, etc. I don't know that it's a law, I don't believe it's a law here, but you're definitely meant to have it and can get in an issue if you don't, both places.

I went looking --

164 Power of constables to require production of driving licence and in certain cases statement of date of birth.

(1)Any of the following persons—

(a)a person driving a motor vehicle on a road,

Click to expand...

Further in the statute, you may have seven days to show up, in person, with said document, if you didn't have it when asked. However, same as here, I'd wager a lot of what happens is going to be due to what's going on. If you don't have documents here a cop will sometimes tell you you've got a few days to bring them to the precinct. That's generally in cases in which there's a minor thing -- a light out, or an accident report. If there's suspected criminal activity and you have no proper ID they can run, and they can't prove you are who you say you are and that you've got a working license, they can hold you until such facts can be determined. They can also cite you for not having proof of ins., of license, etc. if they're not feeling nice about it.

You can probably find a similar statute and go fight it in court but...

In the 1950's, with no foul play suspected, a vehicle registration and ID by relatives would be enough. We were much more innocent back then and much nor prone to make assumptions.

DrDoc

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

I was in San Diego from 1956 on. You had to drive with a driver's license. That would be checked first. Then vehicle registration, then ID from family members. That would be it, barring something fishy. No need for dental and fingerprint checks.

FYI: My mother was trained to drive by a police officer during this period, and my father was a probation officer.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

Even in the 1950s, a driver's license and registration information would only be considered a tentative identification of a deceased person from a motor vehicle accident. The police and coroner, especially in a large metropolitan city like Los Angeles wouldn't consider that alone as an official identification. For one thing, California licenses didn't have photos on them until 1958.

The authorities would have done everything possible to try and conclusively identify the deceased person before notifying next of kin. There’s always a chance a body in question could have been carrying another person’s ID, or wearing clothes that weren't theirs.The authorities would certainly not want to make a death notification only to learn later that they were wrong about the person's identity. So they would do everything possible to be as certain as possible about the deceased person's identity before notifying next of kin or seeking their help in establishing positive identification.

It’s mostly an old television and movie trope where a family member is led into a cold, stark morgue, a sheet is dramatically whipped off, and the family member either nods stoically or collapses into an emotional mess as a hardened detective looks on. In reality, some common injuries, especially facial injuries sustained by motor vehicle accident victims can seriously distort a face and make recognition difficult even for a close friend or family member. That said, having a deceased person identified by someone who knew him or her in life has always been a significant part of conclusively identifying a body. It has just been a much more humane process than that depicted in television and movie dramas.

Potential identifiers are, and I suspect were even in the 1950s shown photos rather than the actual body. There exist many other possible ways a body can be identified beyond facial recognition. Things like distinguishing scars, birthmarks, tattoos, etc. Even if a deceased person had gruesome, graphic facial injuries, tasteful photos of distinguishing marks could be shown to them for identification purposes.

The FBI fingerprint database would have been smaller then than now, and it wasn't automated. It would have taken weeks, maybe months rather than hours to make an identification based on a person's fingerprints. Also, unless a person had been arrested for a felony crime, served in the armed forces, or worked in some sensitive government job, it wasn't unusual for a person in the 1950s to live their entire lives without ever being fingerprinted. Bottom line, the most realistic way a deceased person would have been positively identified back then would have relied on an identification made by a close friend or family member or from dental records.

cornflake said:

I'm sorry, but you're absolutely meant to have your license on you while driving in the UK, same as in the U.S. If you're pulled over, they ask for the same stuff there they do here -- license, insurance cert, etc. I don't know that it's a law, I don't believe it's a law here, but you're definitely meant to have it and can get in an issue if you don't, both places.

I went looking --

Click to expand...

If you don't have it on you, they ask you to report to a police station within 14 days. You don't get in trouble for not having it on you while driving. What I meant in my question was whether it's illegal to drive in a car without your licence on you, as in if you get pulled over and don't have your licence on you there and then, you would be committing a crime and they could charge you for it - from what you say it's something you could get charged with but they won't press charges if they've only pulled someone over for something minor (please correct me if I misunderstood).

Over here, the police don't need to ask for documents a lot of the time anyway. Traffic cops can access the DVLA (driver and vehicle licencing agency) database from within their cars. If they pull you over, they will already know who owns the car, whether it's insured, taxed and MOT'd and whether car's been flagged as stolen or if the driver's wanted for any reason or if they're disqualified from driving, etc, before they even speak to you. They've done away with the paper tax discs you used to have to display in the window because they're obsolete. They will know from their database if your car's taxed or not.

The only valid excuse for driving without an MOT is if you're on the way to the garage for an MOT appointment - they will call the garage to check you really do have an appointment before they let you go anywhere. If you claim you have insurance it's not showing on the database for some reason (e.g. you only took out the policy the previous day or something), they'll call your insurance company to check. If they find that you really do have insurance they probably will ask to see the certificate at the station in the next 14 days. And obviously if you turn out to be lying in those situations you'll be in deep shit. I've even seen (on a traffic cops documentary) police driving someone round his house after being pulled over so he could pick up the (non-existent) insurance papers he claimed he had, before nicking him for having no insurance. If you drive without insurance they can take your car and turn it into a cube.

I won't keep my car ownership document, insurance documents or any other papers with my info on it in my car. If my car gets stolen, then the thief's got all the paperwork too, and enough information to steal my identity. If I have my drivers licence with me, it'll be in my pocket or in a bag that doesn't get left in the car.

neandermagnon said:

If you don't have it on you, they ask you to report to a police station within 14 days. You don't get in trouble for not having it on you while driving. What I meant in my question was whether it's illegal to drive in a car without your licence on you, as in if you get pulled over and don't have your licence on you there and then, you would be committing a crime and they could charge you for it - from what you say it's something you could get charged with but they won't press charges if they've only pulled someone over for something minor (please correct me if I misunderstood).

Over here, the police don't need to ask for documents a lot of the time anyway. Traffic cops can access the DVLA (driver and vehicle licencing agency) database from within their cars. If they pull you over, they will already know who owns the car, whether it's insured, taxed and MOT'd and whether car's been flagged as stolen or if the driver's wanted for any reason or if they're disqualified from driving, etc, before they even speak to you. They've done away with the paper tax discs you used to have to display in the window because they're obsolete. They will know from their database if your car's taxed or not.

The only valid excuse for driving without an MOT is if you're on the way to the garage for an MOT appointment - they will call the garage to check you really do have an appointment before they let you go anywhere. If you claim you have insurance it's not showing on the database for some reason (e.g. you only took out the policy the previous day or something), they'll call your insurance company to check. If they find that you really do have insurance they probably will ask to see the certificate at the station in the next 14 days. And obviously if you turn out to be lying in those situations you'll be in deep shit. I've even seen (on a traffic cops documentary) police driving someone round his house after being pulled over so he could pick up the (non-existent) insurance papers he claimed he had, before nicking him for having no insurance. If you drive without insurance they can take your car and turn it into a cube.

I won't keep my car ownership document, insurance documents or any other papers with my info on it in my car. If my car gets stolen, then the thief's got all the paperwork too, and enough information to steal my identity. If I have my drivers licence with me, it'll be in my pocket or in a bag that doesn't get left in the car.

Click to expand...

No, it's not illegal here, or there, as I said, but you are expected to have a valid license on you when operating a vehicle.

Of course the cops can check the car, here too, but that's got nothing to do with the identity of the driver. You're supposed to have proof you're a licensed driver, and identification, if you're stopped. Knowing who owns the car does nothing for a cop verifying who you are. If there's a suspicion of criminal activity, in either country, they can hold you until they can verify your identity.

Here yeah, they can write you a ticket for not having proof of ins., or, as far as I know, proof of valid license, or they can tell you to bring it to a station within a few days. Your statute says 7, but I'd wager they can ticket you for it. Same as here, you can go argue.

cornflake said:

No, it's not illegal here, or there, as I said, but you are expected to have a valid license on you when operating a vehicle.

Of course the cops can check the car, here too, but that's got nothing to do with the identity of the driver. You're supposed to have proof you're a licensed driver, and identification, if you're stopped. Knowing who owns the car does nothing for a cop verifying who you are. If there's a suspicion of criminal activity, in either country, they can hold you until they can verify your identity.

Here yeah, they can write you a ticket for not having proof of ins., or, as far as I know, proof of valid license, or they can tell you to bring it to a station within a few days. Your statute says 7, but I'd wager they can ticket you for it. Same as here, you can go argue.

Click to expand...

In CA, it is illegal to drive without a valid license on your person, and there is a fine that can be levied for driving without it if caught. Since people are usually pulled over when they break a traffic law already, I assume the fine would be "added on" to the rest. I am guessing that whether or not you are fined will depend on the police officer and the mood he or she is in that day, and on how accommodating they feel towards that particular person and the particular excuse given. Also, the nature of what one is pulled over for may make a difference.

It's not surprising that states vary in this respect, though.