SCOTUS validates the taking of DNA upon arrest

See http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/03/court-police-can-take-dna-swabs-from-arrestees/

The SCOTUS has validated the legality of taking DNA at the time of arrest, prior to trial or conviction. So ... being arrested for literally anything, e.g., "contempt of cop," means that your DNA identity will be entered into the national database no matter what the outcome of the arrest or trial may be.... Worrisome.

I remember reading an article years ago that said government wanted a data base of people's DNA. Everybody said it was a tinfoil hat conspiracy. Well here you go still think its a conspiracy.

JamesCanby said:

See http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/03/court-police-can-take-dna-swabs-from-arrestees/

The SCOTUS has validated the legality of taking DNA at the time of arrest, prior to trial or conviction. So ... being arrested for literally anything, e.g., "contempt of cop," means that your DNA identity will be entered into the national database no matter what the outcome of the arrest or trial may be.... Worrisome.

Click to expand...

Though it's possible it's expensive and right now unlikely, primarily because the labs have a huge back up of testing and are underfunded. They might take a sample, but chances are almost nil it would get run in your lifetime, unless something changes or testing improves. AFAIK.

Do you believe that a DNA sample will ever be "destroyed" after collection?

The DNA test that they do now is a worse ID method than fingerprints

The DNA testing shows a very high % of false positives

So much so that courts now will not allow a defendant to get the state to run his supposed "match" of his to the crime scene to others in their database...because too many matches were occurring. Ex: guy's dna matches up with a crime scene ... they also compare the results to the database and bingo, other "matches" appear.

They don't map out your entire dna ... just a few sections and then they go by this ... very bad science

davidmcbeth said:

The DNA testing shows a very high % of false positives. So much so that courts now will not allow a defendant to get the state to run his supposed "match" of his to the crime scene to others in their database

Click to expand...

Er, wait a minute. If the DNA match can't be matched to other crime scenes because it's too unreliable, how can the same courts permit that match against the instant crime scene? That totally screws the defendant!

We've been on the path for years but we've suddenly stepped on the gas towards that side of town called "guilty until proven innocent". And what's truly sickening is to hear how many people defend it in the name of "safety", "letting the police do their job", "if you've got nothing to hide....", and the ever so wonderful "are you a criminal?"

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

OC for ME said:

Do you believe that a DNA sample will ever be "destroyed" after collection?

Click to expand...

Never! Just as any police "contact" is never removed from the Law Enforcement Inquiry Network (LEIN). Doesn't matter if you didn't do anything - rule of thumb is - once in the system, ALWAYS in the system. This ruling opens up lots of room for police abuses. Some less reputable departments may start finding any excuse to arrest people simply to build their databases. The really scary thing is anyones DNA can easily be obtained by simply going through their trash/recycling bins. Need a case closed quick and don't like the open cary guy down the street...no problem he's in the DNA database & guess what? "We" found a soda cup with his DNA on the straw at the scene of a drug shootout where large sums of drug $$$ are now unaccounted for....

This is just another step closer to micro chipping all citizens for their "safety & national security". Orwell's 1984 nightmare looms on the horizon.

davidmcbeth said:

The DNA test that they do now is a worse ID method than fingerprints

The DNA testing shows a very high % of false positives...

Click to expand...

cite?

randian said:

Er, wait a minute. If the DNA match can't be matched to other crime scenes because it's too unreliable, how can the same courts permit that match against the instant crime scene? That totally screws the defendant!

Click to expand...

Considering the track record of the poster to whom you are replying, do you really want to take what he says solely on his word? Would you rather he back up his assertion with a credible source?

I am having to cogitate on this one and am looking forward to a back-and-forth of opinions to help me make up my mind. My instincts are that this is an unreasonable search, but some things aren't as they have been purported here.

1. The DNA is not collected for all arrests, only arrests where probable cause exists that the arrestee has committed a serious crime. Those are defined as murder, rape, assault, burglary, and the like.

2. The DNA will not be collected until after arraignment, at which point the reasonableness of the probable cause for the arrest will be determined by a judge. In essence, the judge will be determining whether things proceed to the next step, which would include DNA collection.

3. If the arrest does not result in a conviction that stands up to appeal, the DNA sample is destroyed.

So convince me that this is not a similar level of protection to that of requiring a warrant from a judge who determines that there is probable cause. After all, a judge will pass on the probable cause for the arrest before the DNA is taken.

I don't think they should take your DNA untill you are found guilty of a crime. I don't trust the fact they say it will be destroyed later. Your fingerprints and photo are more than enough when you are charged with a crime. I feel they should only take DNA if your suspected of a another crime after your convection of the first charge.

eye95 said:

I am having to cogitate on this one and am looking forward to a back-and-forth of opinions to help me make up my mind. My instincts are that this is an unreasonable search, but some things aren't as they have been purported here.

1. The DNA is not collected for all arrests, only arrests where probable cause exists that the arrestee has committed a serious crime. Those are defined as murder, rape, assault, burglary, and the like.

2. The DNA will not be collected until after arraignment, at which point the reasonableness of the probable cause for the arrest will be determined by a judge. In essence, the judge will be determining whether things proceed to the next step, which would include DNA collection.

3. If the arrest does not result in a conviction that stands up to appeal, the DNA sample is destroyed.

So convince me that this is not a similar level of protection to that of requiring a warrant from a judge who determines that there is probable cause. After all, a judge will pass on the probable cause for the arrest before the DNA is taken.

Click to expand...

If I recall, the DNA sample is collected at booking and the sample is not submitted for testing until arraignment. Difference without a distinction? I don't know. The dissent in the opinion I agree with. The premise in the majority opinion is that the DNA is collected to verify the perps ID, where fingerprints do the same thing as evidenced by the argument in the majority opinion. The majority opinion essentially, in my view, permits my DNA sample to be taken if I am arrested and booked regardless of the crime. I do not think a DNA sample will be required to be taken as a result of me receiving a citation for a infraction. Misdemeanors are on the table as well as felonies.

The majority did not state that a DNA sample can only be taken for "serious crimes" it only stated that MD law required the DNA sample to be taken for serious crimes. If a state law requires a DNA sample to be taken during the booking process this opinion would not prohibit that.

I must trust the "state" to destroy that sample if I am not convicted of a crime. I hold little faith in the state destroying the sample. At this point, their word is insufficient for me. I also believe that if a sample is discovered to not have been destroyed there will be minimal if any consequences for not following the law.

Your dna contains information about you that we know will show some medical issues; so a dna sample goes beyond simple IDing one.

One could use a set of questions and answers for ID as well ... so they can question you for "IDing" purposes -and you must answer? Courts have already ruled you can be required to ID yourself.

And what else will we learn from our dna .. political leanings? What if they found a series of genes that all murders have in common .. can this justify internment of others who have the same series of genes? Some people would say YES in a second.

the court was 100% wrong on this one ... obamalama care, this, etc. examples of how lax people are to put their trust in any branch of our government ... now they are taking away our gun rights - the only right that really can effect the others (the pen is not always more powerful than the sword)

OC for ME said:

If I recall, the DNA sample is collected at booking and the sample is not submitted for testing until arraignment. Difference without a distinction? I don't know. The dissent in the opinion I agree with. The premise in the majority opinion is that the DNA is collected to verify the perps ID, where fingerprints do the same thing as evidenced by the argument in the majority opinion. The majority opinion essentially, in my view, permits my DNA sample to be taken if I am arrested and booked regardless of the crime. I do not think a DNA sample will be required to be taken as a result of me receiving a citation for a infraction. Misdemeanors are on the table as well as felonies.

The majority did not state that a DNA sample can only be taken for "serious crimes" it only stated that MD law required the DNA sample to be taken for serious crimes. If a state law requires a DNA sample to be taken during the booking process this opinion would not prohibit that.

I must trust the "state" to destroy that sample if I am not convicted of a crime. I hold little faith in the state destroying the sample. At this point, their word is insufficient for me. I also believe that if a sample is discovered to not have been destroyed there will be minimal if any consequences for not following the law.

Click to expand...

The SC upheld a specific law. The protections I mention are from that law that was upheld, including the bar on taking the DNA sample until after arraignment, after a judge has ruled on the probable cause.

Should another State pass a similar law, that law would still be subject to review of any ways in which it varies from the law that was upheld. IOW, if another State allows collection of the sample before arraignment, before a judge hacks off on the PC, that would be subject to judicial review.

Also, if arrests for minor offenses were included, that would also be battled out in the courts--and I would be unquestioningly against that. That puts the lie to the contention of some here that the SC ruling allows the collection of DNA for spurious arrests, what they call arrests for "contempt of cop." To collect the DNA there must be probable cause to believe, as found by a judge, that the person has committed a serious crime.

That comports with the 4A with one possible problem. Would the comparison of that DNA against DNA in open cases constitute a "fishing expedition"?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

That comports with the 4A with one possible problem. Would the comparison of that DNA against DNA in open cases constitute a "fishing expedition"?

<o>

Click to expand...

The gov't would claim its just being responsible doing such comparisons ... and to not do it would be unconscionable

For the children ... of course

people don't understand the test ~ if they did and they understood the molecule, they would know the ruling is terrible. But hey, ignorance is bliss.

eye95 said:

<snip>

That comports with the 4A with one possible problem. Would the comparison of that DNA against DNA in open cases constitute a "fishing expedition"?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

The taking of the sample occurs at booking in the MD law. The database check occurs after arraignment if PC is upheld. The perp is no saint and deserves a long stay in a facility at my expense.

My only concern is the disposition of a sample taken if there is no PC or conviction.

The cops in MD did go fishing, the perp did not dispute his identity, and there were other means that confirmmed his identy w/o the use of his DNA. The problem you allude to has been revealed.

Once the sample has been removed from the sight of the arrestee then that DNA sample can no longer be proven to have been destroyed or not entered into a DB.

The DNA sample should be taken after PC has been upheld. Then the sample is only entered into a database if the identity of the accused is not already known via previous ID methods such as fingerprints/photo. Once the sample has been entered into a database it must be a one time event and any data entered is not retained by the DB or application that is used to enter the data. Retention of the entered data must be prohibited at the code level in the application/DB and not changeable by any user. If a conviction is returned then the sample is entered permanently into the DB via a different DB access application not available to any local LEA.

The DB and application to access the DB must have a method to track every data entry, when entered, and by whom. Even a viewing (read only) access must be logged. This tracking/logging capability must be at the code level and not accessible or changeable by any user.

eye95 said:

1. The DNA is not collected for all arrests, only arrests where probable cause exists that the arrestee has committed a serious crime. Those are defined as murder, rape, assault, burglary, and the like.

Click to expand...

The gov't/LE wouldn't expand that criteria later. They've never done anything like that before. (sarcasm)

eye95 said:

2. The DNA will not be collected until after arraignment, at which point the reasonableness of the probable cause for the arrest will be determined by a judge. In essence, the judge will be determining whether things proceed to the next step, which would include DNA collection.

Click to expand...

I think the "when" in regards to collection will be downplayed and ignored if they have permission to do so without a warrant. As is, Maryland collects DNA upon booking, not arraignment.

eye95 said:

3. If the arrest does not result in a conviction that stands up to appeal, the DNA sample is destroyed.

Click to expand...

It happened. Wiki: "FBI agents cannot legally store DNA of a person who was not convicted of a crime. DNA collected from a suspect who was not later convicted must be disposed of and not entered into the database. In 1998 a man residing in the UK was arrested on accusation of burglary. His DNA was taken and tested, and he was later released. Nine months later, this man’s DNA was accidentally and illegally entered in the DNA database. New DNA is automatically compared to the DNA found at cold cases, and in this case, this man was found to be a match to DNA found at a rape and assault case one year earlier. The government then prosecuted him for these crimes. During the trial the DNA match was requested to be removed from the evidence because it had been illegally entered into the database. The request was facilitated. [11]"


DNA collection I'm ok with if it has a reason behind it and has a defined place. Allowing it to happen during booking shouldn't be allowed. Fingerprints and photos are an identification. DNA is me, literally. Allowing the DNA collection to take place in order to perform a fishing expedition is just wrong. We already have emails, texts, phone calls monitored at any given time with just the slightest of pixie-dust evidence. All for fishing expeditions.

The other issue I have is the creation and maintenance of a DNA database. Who knows what will be discovered in the future that will enable the DNA database to be utilized in less-than-humane methods? Profiling, cleansing, enhancement, etc. Technology, throughout time, has broken through barriers painfully and harshly. The Wright brothers sparked technology that has killed tens of thousands. It enabled the greatest mass-murder in American history (all's fair in love and war). Technology is great, don't get me wrong. But when it's twisted in the control of gov't, good things rarely happen.

I'm not sure why eye95 is on the fence about this one. After all, The Arbiters of Truth have spoken.

According to this ruling, police can take a DNA sample for jaywalking.

I believe that DNA should only be taken WITH A COURT ORDER and ONLY if the DNA is relevant to a crime that the person has been arrested for.

I DONT believe police should be able to keep a DNA sample on file is someone has their charges dropped or is found not guilty.

In 2004 California voters voted to allow extensive DNA collection and extensive DNA retention. I was one of those voters. Now I regret my decision and believe those laws should be repealed.

I believe 10 states don't allow DNA to be taken and kept for ordinary arrests.