Police Illegally Seizing DNA from Drivers

Originally posted by benign.psychosis

harvest DNA - even though that would be a good idea and solve crimes faster.

sit there and be a selfish schmuck while the police are trying to do their jobs. cause to taser your socially defiant

So, not allowing filthy NAZIized pigs to harvest our DNA because they are too stupid or lazy to find a killer by doing hard work makes us socially defiant selfish schmuck's that deserve to be tortured by jolts of electricity eh?

I suggest you might need to be tasered & imprisoned for having those kind of EVIL thoughts about your fellow human beings.

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
It's more efficient to set up a checkpoint and have all the nice law abiding citizens wait in line and submit to the test for the safety of the community. We like to work together as a community, right?

Yeah, it might be more efficient for lazy NAZI PIGS to do their job by making a prison out of the world with controlled movements and check points for of all us presumed criminals citizens then we can prove our innocents every time we leave the house or decide to travel out of our safe zones.

Destroy millions of peoples freedom just to catch a few miscreants is against everything we stand for in America and that crime would be bigger than any crimes they would be solving by doing such.

I seriously doubt this is about a "serial Killer" its just another way to collect the database since we won't do it voluntarily. These neocon automatons are relentless and they come up with more excuses than a hooker going to jail!

Its not that the police are bad- because they are not by and large- they're just stupid tools that are misled.

Lowfrequency- try not to hate them. They are not Nazi's. They are robots merely to be avoided. They caught Ted Bundy without DNA!

I understand your feelings- I have learned to direct mine to the Zionist elite- those are the perps who need to be assassinated.


[edit on 7-2-2008 by dk3000]

To have a sample taken in the first place means you were either at the scene of the crime or are a suspect that has been arrested for questioning.

Anyone else is an innocent bystander. But this report seems to show that the entire area that the police patrol is under suspicion. Dragnet.

And you want to talk about serial killers being on the street... ok, there's several thousand in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, under the control of some nutcase dictator across the Atlantic ocean.

I would personally be very angry with the police for even asking me to give a swab. Then can drag me kicking and screaming to the cells until I get the chance to find out EXACTLY what they can and can not do.

In this case, I am innocent and have nothing to fear. Just because I don't submit my DNA does not mean I have something to hide.

I'd charge them with wrongful arrest afterwards....

reply to post by dk3000


This sort of thing has been done in Colorado and several other places in the USA. While before the election of George W. Bush this sort of thing would have been illegal, it has been a modus operandi of his security forces through Homeland Security and the militarised police departments. Citizens are put in a situation that if they refuse they will be arrested and who has time to deal with the hassle just to assert ones rights, right? So the security enforcers of the police state push, push, and push some more in controlling the rights of citizens.

Remember this is the M.O. of the Bush police state forces:
(a) Use an act of violence or terror to strengthen control of the populace through all means;
(b) Tell the populace that in order to apprehend the criminals in question, they must surrender their rights and liberties for a time;
(c) Push this agenda until a significant portion of the populace pushes back;
(d) Wait and try again during the next "act of terror" or "crime of violence".

reply to post by kosmicjack

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the Justice Department’s move to collect DNA samples of individuals who are arrested or detained by federal authorities - even if they are not convicted, or charged with a crime. That collection was authorized in an amendment authored by Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and John Cornyn (R-TX) to the Violence Against Women Act in 2005.

Source | ACLU | ACLU Alarmed At Justice Department Move to Collect DNA, Violates Privacy Rights and Causes Further Delays in Overwhelmed System

Haven't found the news article yet...

reply to post by benign.psychosis



Your ENTIRE reply was a waste of time. it is totally wrong. you site sources that refute what you say. Think for a moment what you are saying. If a cop forces you to give a test, do you think that it is not going to hit the fan that very day? As soon as some TV station got it, there would be hell to pay. You actually think that cop's can do anything they want and all we can do is file a complain later? Thats CRAZY!!

you may LAWFULLY resist any illegal actions by a cop. In my state the citizen has the LEGAL right to resist with FORCE any cop that violates the rights of the people or attempts to make an illegal arrest. We do NOT have ANY law that says that we must obey all orders of a cop and file a lawsuit if we don't like it; that is nonsense. The ONLY lawful orders os a cop are for safety and traffic. Cops CANNOT legally make you shine their shoes, and they cannot make you give a swab.

Of course some crazed cop could fight a citizen to get a swab, but then he would be fired and sued as well. You REALLY have NO comprehension of the basis of the law; you are trying to make it look like you have a legal leg to stand on, but you do not.

It is NOT trrue, as you said, that the cop can just use force and we have to do whatever he says: You are saying that a cop makes the law on the spot, and if we do not like it, we must go and find a court to complain to...that is insane!! WHERE did you getn than idea? All of the sources you link to say NOTHING that backs you up, not one thing.

You have the basic foundations of the law totallyu confused: The law does NOT say that we must legally obey cop's orders. It says we must obey all LAZWFUL orders, and those are very .limited. They are limited to safety and such. If a cop says' get out of here ' you get out. But if a cop says" Hey, give me a swab" you can LEGALLY resist and say no and use FORCE if need bge to repel an unlawful attack on your person.

If a cop tried to take a sample by force, a citizen can legally fight him off and take it to the mats. LKater, when the reason for theresistance is shown, the cop would be fired and charged criminally for assaulting the driver illegally. According to YOUR vast legal knoweldge,a citizen could be stopped by cop's dragged from his car and forcible held down and a swab taken..is that right? you really think that nothing could be done unless the citizen went to court? Believe me, the cops would be in jail by nightfall.

Citizens do NOT have to undergo anything some cop decides is Ok and all he can do is complain later; it doesnt work that way. If that were the case, cop's could rape and assault and deprive rights all they wanted, right/ If the citizen could not complain, then it all Ok, correct? That is so far from reality. You are losing all credibility here, you have no idea what the law is.

People may RESIST and DEFEND themselves from ILLEGAL actions by the cop's. That includes demands to give up rights, and physical assault. If some cop is stupid enough to try and take a sample from someone who is refusing, he deserves to get fought off, or beaten or shot. An assault is an assualt. Legally cop's are LIMITED as to what they can do. your idea that anything goes until someone hires a lweyr is nuts..unfounded in the law.

You are IMAGINING that the law allows for the police to issiue any order they wish, and if we refuse then they can use force to get consent. That is just plain and simple a lie.If a cop crosses the line into illegal conduct, he REMOVES himself from the protection of the law and is liable for not only physical resistance, but lawsuits and CRIMINAL charges as well!!

If a court decides that a cop did not have a legal basis for their actions, that allows the citizen to defend himself. So we do NOT have to stand by and submit just because some cop says so....that is just wrong.

When you run out of logic and obviosly do not know the law, what do you resort to? Telling me I am stubborn!! I am stubborn because I know the law; I STUDIED IT for years, friend, although I never took the bar.I KNOW the underpinnings of the law and the application of it, and you are so far off base that you are just hoping to overwhelm with info and writing and links but ALL of it is based on a faulty basis: Citizens do NOT have to stand by and be abused by cop's breaking the law. Cop's CANNOT legally demand compliance with a rewust and cannot use force when a citizen refuses.

the entire basis of your belief is mistaken; better do some legal reading before you go around claiming things that are in fact the total opposite.Show us case law that allows cop's to violate the rights of citizens at their whim by ignoring the need for due process and I will resign from ATS. It does not exist. DUE PROCESS is a subject you really need to study for a while...it lays out the basis for what we get in the way of rights. It means that cops cannot just make up the rules as they go and all we can do is gripe later...no way. if a cop is breaking the law, the citizen may resist and resist violently oif need be top repel the illegal actions of the cop.

Cop's are NOT assumed to be right until proven different, they are held to legal standards as well as we are. If some cop can force a swab from me, he can cop a feel from your daughter or steal your money or anytrhing else he wants..right? All you can do is file a complain later? No way Jose!! You could shoot that cop in the head if he acted like he was going to violate your rights, if that is what it took to protect yourself. We are NOT chained down by the law to the point where cop's are Gods...and as such they better keep from violating our rights or face immediate consequences for their actions and a lawsuit and charged later as well.

Quit looking for a legal way to make them God's; it does not exist in the law. All the law you quoted was totally wrong for your case. you lose.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by benign.psychosis

 

Thanks for the information of searches, but do you have anything that shows that in the US police have the right to take DNA swaps from citizens in traffic stop or searches?

That will be appreciated.

Right now, there is nothing other then the police have the right to ask for your consent to the test, to verbally pressure you into taking it without the use of force or threat without telling you that you have a right to refuse.

Also, if you start acting violent, verbally threatening, tried to run, even turned around from the checkpoint, found to be using illegal drugs, or do anything that a sane person wouldn't do, then you could give the police probable cause to detain you while they requested a warrant to force you to submit to DNA testing, and you wouldn't have a case if you were innocent. Now, because in the last 7 or so years, the probable cause requirement has been very relaxed, a warrant is often obtained very quickly so you wouldn't be spending too much time in the holding cell.

reply to post by dk3000


Yeah, I know most of them are good regular guys still. ( I hope my friends don't read this)

I believe one of the problems is the cop mentality that comes up with these prison world checkpoint ideas stems from many cops being in the military most of their lives where they see that it works good in that environment - such as in a war zone like Iraq or even at the base in the US.

In that world everyone is considered guilty because it is most efficient & when you sign on you agree to live in a pseudo prison camp where you're told what to do, when to do it and what to eat etc.

They're so use to their military world that they've lived in for 20 years that they can't understand why we don't all want to live like that as they try to bring those ideas into the civilian world by making checkpoints & so on.


[edit on 7-2-2008 by verylowfrequency]

reply to post by Pellevoisin


No law channged and it is ILLEGAL to arrest a citizen because they refuse. understand? they CANNOT arrest you. What charge are they going to use? " Subject insisted on asking for his Constitutional rights, and so I am charging him with being an informed citizen"...see? There is NO law that allows for the cops to grab people off the streets because they resist illegal actions.

People just do not comprehend the justice system: There are forms to be filed out, judges to appear in front of, etc. Cop's cannot just say " Hey, lock this guy up because I don't like his attitude. There is no law for that, now is there? No. So never worry about some cop dragging you in for staying silent and sticking up for your RIGHTS. They are RIGHTS because they cannot be taken away without due process; people imagine that cop's can simply ignore due process, but they cannot.

NO COP can just run you in for no good cause; they get sued that way, and fired also. People need to lose both their hero worship of the cops and their fear of them:Cops are 90% bluff, 8 % lies and the rest BS. If you stand firm they will back down; if not they can be sued, and in some cases resisted with force, LEGALLY.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
reply to post by benign.psychosis

 

Quit looking for a legal way to make them God's; it does not exist in the law. All the law you quoted was totally wrong for your case. you lose.

Ah. So that's why you are acting that way. You are on some type of anti-cop agenda.

I'm not picking sides here. I'm just telling you the facts. I told you exactly what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. I cited cases to support my statements. The American Bar Association, the 4th Amendment, and various supreme court cases support what I have said. You are clearly acting on some form of biased, emotional agenda based on a skewed logic and distorted understanding of the American legal system.

All you are doing is making accusations that I am implying that I think cops are gods who can use force whenever they want, or that citizens have to bow down to them at all times. You seem to think I am somehow personally siding with the cops.

You can continue to say "You don't know the law" or "You lose" but it's futile. It's rather immature too. I think the world is probably better off that you've never passed your legal training. You are not even familar with legal loopholes. I wonder, would you use those terms in court?

"You're honor, I object! The prosecutor does not know the law, so he loses!"

reply to post by benign.psychosis


PLEASE stop giving bad legal advice. The cop's CANNOT get a warrant for DNA because of any of the things you mentioned. You still do not understand the law. If you run from a roadblock, then that might trigger a closer look at you, but it STILL has NOTHING to do with the DNA!! Where do you get this stuff?

You list a bunch of reasons for a cop to either look closer or arrest you. That STILL does NOT have ANY link to the DNA swab. HOW can you say that someone that avoided a cop stop did so for any particular reason? Are you a mind reader? Maybe the guy has an exxpired license, or a joint in the car. No matter what, the DNA collection is a TOTALLY SEPERATE IUUSE from anything else...can't you see that? YOU CANNOT JUST link things together in your mind and call that probale cause.

What would the cop tell a judge? Hey Judge, I want a warrant to get a swab from John Doe." WHY?". Well, Judge, see, we were set up ands asking everone we stopped to give us a swab for DNA.. This guy drove around the checkpoint, so he must be the killer.". The judge would laugh, and then tell the cop to get the hell out!! The judge would tell the cop: Look, how do YOU know what was in his mind? how do YOU know that he was involved in the killings?" Well, judge, I don't have any evidence, I just want to get swabs from everyone and he is trying to get away..

It would be the laughingstock of the day in a court if any cop was stupid enough to ask for a warrant based on nothing but some guess. My God, where have all the students of the law gone? Now all I see is people who think they have a grip on it but are far from competent....you are so very wrong again.

Originally posted by aTwistofReality
This thread is a bit misleading. The article states they are swabbing the mouths of "mouths of persons of interests during traffic stops". They have DNA samples from the crime scene and have a specific profile they are looking for.

Let's keep in mind that this is during a traffic stop and they are not stopping traffic to swab everyone's mouth. They are probably doing this to save time and money instead of bringing every "person of interest" into the station, which they do have the legal right to do. The article does not mention what would happen if you refused to do the swab. My guess is that you may be taken down to the station and questioned.

However, while I understand they are trying to get a serial killer off the streets, I do believe they maybe crossing the line with illegally searching individuals. This evidence may not hold up in court so they would really need to be careful on how they handle this.

That being said, we do need to be careful with our liberties. They are so easily given up but not that easily gained.

Just my two cents, and probably not worth half of that.

Exactly my thoughts. Their actions are based on good intentions, but the way it is being carried out maybe slightly constitutional. I would like to see, or hear about, someone refuse to give into the test. I know you can refuse to a breathalizer test, but strict consequences become of it (fines, loss of license, etc).

While there are a lot of good arguments for events like this, and likewise good arguments for the notion of a national database, those arguments all collapse when based on the application of force.

DNA is literally part of a person's body. This is not like taking a fingerprint. This is like taking the finger. That's fine if some people are OK with that... whatever helps them sleep at night. But if they want a piece of me, they can have it at the autopsy.

reply to post by benign.psychosis


You actually think its reasonable to Pressure or use a Threat to get what they want?
How freaking ridiculous is that?

Originally posted by ATruGod
reply to post by benign.psychosis

 

You actually think its reasonable to Pressure or use a Threat to get what they want?
How freaking ridiculous is that?

Personally, I don't find it reasonable.

The supreme court does.

reply to post by benign.psychosis


Ok fine show me a link or something that shows the Supreme Court has ok'd the use of Intimidation (another way of saying Pressure) and threats to allow Police Officers to get the evidence they need in criminal cases.

BTW It's nice to know you dont find it reasonable (even though you seem to be ok with the whole thing).

Here is a link to HR 3402:

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...:h3402enr.txt.pdf

The part called Title X refers to DNA Fingerprinting.

Section 1004 pertains to collecting of DNA samples of persons arrested or DETAINED.

This applies to persons detained under Federal authority, but, if a serial killer is the focus of these detentions, it is safe to assume federal involvement.

This bill was originally introduced by senator Joe Biden of Delaware.

As you can see, it was enacted in 1/4/2005 and provides funding through FY2009.

Specific section:

SEC. 1004. AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT DNA SAMPLE COLLECTION
FROM PERSONS ARRESTED OR DETAINED UNDER FEDERAL
AUTHORITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination
Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)—
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘The Director’’ and
inserting the following:
‘‘(A) The Attorney General may, as prescribed by the
Attorney General in regulation, collect DNA samples from
individuals who are arrested or from non-United States
persons who are detained under the authority of the United
States. The Attorney General may delegate this function
within the Department of Justice as provided in section
510 of title 28, United States Code, and may also authorize
and direct any other agency of the United States that
arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals
facing charges to carry out any function and exercise any
power of the Attorney General under this section.

If I understand this, it authorizes collection from any individual that is arrested and a non-US person that is detained.

reply to post by eyewitness86


I appreciate your reply. The sad fact is that the militarised US Police departments have been taught to arrest first, put you through the humiliation, use trumped up charges, and then drop all charges if the heat gets turned on them too high.

They absolutely have no legal right to do this, but this is the operational manual in the Bush/Cheney/Reid/Pelosi U.S.A.