A proposal before the South Australian Parliament to allow police the power to stop people in the street and scan their fingerprints "should send shivers down everyone's spine", the Greens have said.

Key points: Police are currently able to ask for traditional identification if they think someone has committed or may be about to commit a crime

Police are currently able to ask for traditional identification if they think someone has committed or may be about to commit a crime Plans to allow police to stop and fingerprint people in the streets raise privacy complaints

Plans to allow police to stop and fingerprint people in the streets raise privacy complaints Greens say technology is developing faster than the laws can be made

The high-tech fingerprint scanners have been trialled in the state and there is a bill before Parliament to roll out the technology to be used more broadly.

At the moment police can ask for traditional identification, but the plan is to give police the power to scan anyone's fingerprints if they think they may be able to help with their inquiries or if they think the person may be about to commit a crime.

Greens leader Mark Parnell said the plans were an over-reach and the technology was continuing to evolve much quicker than lawmakers could keep up with.

"Whether it's George Orwell or some other dystopian scientific future, these are the sort of laws that allow that to happen and the Greens will certainly be looking to make sure our police have sufficient powers but not too many powers," he said.

"This is the realm of science fiction and it should send shivers down everyone's spine."

He said the party wanted police to have appropriate power to catch criminals but the bill went too far.

"It enables all manner of bio-metric testing and it does actually lead to a situation where the state could hold a database of every single person's fingerprints, their iris scan and other information about them," he said.

"It is a step too far when it comes to privacy because it is not just about capturing criminals, it is about the data that all of us own."

Police need 'suspicion' to stop people

South Australian Council for Civil Liberties (SACCL) chairwoman Claire O'Connor said currently police needed to have suspicions a person had committed a crime, was about to commit a crime or may have evidence in relation to a crime to stop a person to search and ask for identification.

"So they are the traditional grounds that police have to stop and search and adding the ability to take fingerprints on site I would have no problems at all," Ms O'Connor said.

"In fact it could assist in some ways because sometimes police don't believe identification and that would clarify things."

She said the council would have issues if police powers were extended to include taking fingerprints without suspicion of a crime being committed and questioned how the information would be stored.

"You can't just stop and search and request the community carte blanche to do things without police having that original suspicion," she said.

"New South Wales already has this equipment, and I can't imagine South Australia on its own would turn us into a police state."

Government backs police calls for technology

Shadow Attorney-General Vickie Chapman said she had been told the technology would not retain the fingerprints and that it scanned and cross-referenced the database.

"There has to be a balance — we don't want there to be an exploitation or an abuse of this process," Ms Chapman said.

"If you want to use the scanner for someone you have a reasonable belief that they have committed a crime or about to we can live with that … what we do draw the line on though is if you want to use it to just to sort of help your inquiries, stop and require anyone in the street then that is not acceptable."

The Opposition wants to change the bill before Parliament so that finger-printing only happens when someone refuses to give traditional identification.

A Government spokesperson said SA Police had informed it the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party would render the bill useless.

"The Government will not agree to the amendments proposed by the Opposition," the statement said.

The Government also said the fingerprints would not be kept.