Draconian powers to allow police to lock up suspects for longer and fingerprint them without being charged were announced yesterday in a drive to improve police "efficiency".

Civil liberties campaigners accused the Home Office of endangering those in police cells as ministers revealed the outcome of a long-awaited review of the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Pace). The changes to the legislation, which was introduced to prevent miscarriages of justice, come as the Government is poised to introduce what critics call the most illiberal crime Bill in modern times.

Under the plans, the maximum time anyone can be detained by police without charge will be extended from 24 to 36 hours, no matter what the offence. Other controversial proposals include allowing magistrates to authorise warrants by telephone, fax or video link rather than forcing police to apply in person at court.

Police will also be able to take a suspect's fingerprints before charges are brought to stop wanted criminals escaping custody by giving a false identity which cannot be checked. To prevent "serious social nuisance", police would be given powers to stop and search suspected graffiti artists for spray cans and marker pens.

Other proposed changes in the review, which was commissioned by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, in May, included expanding the role of civilian staff to help in police searches and increasing use of video ID parades. Police would be given discretion to use "street bail", where they can arrest someone and release them on bail without taking a suspect to a police station.

John Denham, a Home Office minister, said current Pace procedures made life "unnecessarily difficult" for officers. "Extra resources and officers need to be complemented by a reduction in red-tape to make the most of rising police numbers," he said.

Roger Bingham, of the civil and human rights group Liberty, said the requirement for police officers to apply to a superintendent to hold a suspect beyond 24 hours had been an "important check" on the abuse of power.