That's an awful idea. The potential for false positives is significant, since fingerprints are not 100% accurate identification method.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3093498/ states that even professional forensics required independent verification to eliminate false positives.

The hashes, whatever they are, will not be "binary" in their nature. Matching against a range of visual characteristics requires to allow some level of fuzziness. Even assuming that near future improvements bring the false positive rate to half of that of the best forensic experts (to 0.05%), the law of large numbers guarantees that innocent people will be caught up in investigation dragnets. Just imagine the lives destroyed by these kinds of clerical errors.

The above is the same reason I'm against our national law enforcement getting access to the passport biometric databases. Even discounting the potential for abuse: once the police have a suspect with "matching" fingerprint available, they will have less incentive to find other ones.

It's a shame really, because all evidence is fuzzy on some level. DNA could be planted, videos can be a of a lookalike, or being at a particular location at a particular time could be a coincidence. I don't know exactly how law enforcement works, but they really should be looking for connections and try to explain why a suspect is not the right guy, instead of the other way around. Maybe that is just wishful thinking.