It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court upholds DNA swabbing of people under arrest

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
like others, I'm torn on this one.

I'm not sure the taking of DNA is really a problem, as much as how the information is kept, who has access and how it's used.

If it's used as a way to identify criminals, that's OK in my mind. If it's accessible for any other reason I have an issue with that.

I think overall I'm OK with this, but Congress needs to take note and pass legislation controlling how it's used and by whom.




And your vision of "if it's used to catch criminals" is what will allow this injustice to be passed. The oppressors will always use a populaces fear to pass whatever they want

Same way they used the fear of the "big, evil, drug dealer dealing to your kids" to commence this war on drugs. It starts as an ok sounding infringement, then it morphs into something else.




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


Honestly, this does not seem like an unreasonable search or seizure, they're not swabbing everyone (just those that have already been seized). The Fourth Amendment does not give anyone the right to commit a crime, it is there to protect the innocent from an abuse of power. DNA swabs will go a lot further towards protecting rights by eliminating unnecessary seizures on RS- this is a vast improvement of Fourth Amendment protections, at least the way I see it, and it is not adding an unnecessary intrusion to accomplish it. Looks like a win for the good guys!




You're coming from the perspective that YOU are a good guy...but what happens when due to some belief (righteous) that you become a bad guy? What if participating in a Conspiracy site makes you a bad guy?

See people are so concerned with "it's ok to oppress THOSE people over there, cause they are different than me" they miss the entire point.

You perhaps, don't believe that you will ever be arrested because you are a good guy. Again, what if drinking coffee turns you into a bad guy? Or any of the other things (now legal) you enjoy doing become illegal? It's just that simple.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Here is an example of a State DNA collection law.

RSMo - 650.055


Felony convictions for certain offenses to have biological samples collected, when--use of sample--highway patrol and department of corrections, duty--DNA records and biological materials to be closed record, disclosure, when--expungement of record, when.
650.055. 1. Every individual who:

(1) Is found guilty of a felony or any offense under chapter 566; or

(2) Is seventeen years of age or older and arrested for burglary in the first degree under section 569.160, or burglary in the second degree under section 569.170, or a felony offense under chapter 565, 566, 567, 568, or 573; or

(3) Has been determined to be a sexually violent predator pursuant to sections 632.480 to 632.513; or

(4) Is an individual required to register as a sexual offender under sections 589.400 to 589.425;

shall have a fingerprint and blood or scientifically accepted biological sample collected for purposes of DNA profiling analysis.

2. Any individual subject to DNA collection and profiling analysis under this section shall provide a DNA sample:

(1) Upon booking at a county jail or detention facility; or

(2) Upon entering or before release from the department of corrections reception and diagnostic centers; or

(3) Upon entering or before release from a county jail or detention facility, state correctional facility, or any other detention facility or institution, whether operated by a private, local, or state agency, or any mental health facility if committed as a sexually violent predator pursuant to sections 632.480 to 632.513; or

(4) When the state accepts a person from another state under any interstate compact, or under any other reciprocal agreement with any county, state, or federal agency, or any other provision of law, whether or not the person is confined or released, the acceptance is conditional on the person providing a DNA sample if the person was found guilty of a felony offense in any other jurisdiction; or

(5) If such individual is under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections. Such jurisdiction includes persons currently incarcerated, persons on probation, as defined in section 217.650, and on parole, as also defined in section 217.650; or

(6) At the time of registering as a sex offender under sections 589.400 to 589.425.

3. The Missouri state highway patrol and department of corrections shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to the law. Any person required to provide a DNA sample pursuant to this section shall be required to provide such sample, without the right of refusal, at a collection site designated by the Missouri state highway patrol and the department of corrections. Authorized personnel collecting or assisting in the collection of samples shall not be liable in any civil or criminal action when the act is performed in a reasonable manner. Such force may be used as necessary to the effectual carrying out and application of such processes and operations. The enforcement of these provisions by the authorities in charge of state correctional institutions and others having custody or jurisdiction over individuals included in subsection 1 of this section which shall not be set aside or reversed is hereby made mandatory. The board of probation or parole shall recommend that an individual on probation or parole who refuses to provide a DNA sample have his or her probation or parole revoked. In the event that a person's DNA sample is not adequate for any reason, the person shall provide another sample for analysis.

4. The procedure and rules for the collection, analysis, storage, expungement, use of DNA database records and privacy concerns shall not conflict with procedures and rules applicable to the Missouri DNA profiling system and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's DNA databank system.

5. Unauthorized use or dissemination of individually identifiable DNA information in a database for purposes other than criminal justice or law enforcement is a class A misdemeanor.

6. Implementation of sections 650.050 to 650.100 shall be subject to future appropriations to keep Missouri's DNA system compatible with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's DNA databank system.

7. All DNA records and biological materials retained in the DNA profiling system are considered closed records pursuant to chapter 610. All records containing any information held or maintained by any person or by any agency, department, or political subdivision of the state concerning an individual's DNA profile shall be strictly confidential and shall not be disclosed, except to:

(1) Peace officers, as defined in section 590.010, and other employees of law enforcement agencies who need to obtain such records to perform their public duties;

(2) The attorney general or any assistant attorneys general acting on his or her behalf, as defined in chapter 27;

(3) Prosecuting attorneys or circuit attorneys as defined in chapter 56, and their employees who need to obtain such records to perform their public duties;

(4) The individual whose DNA sample has been collected, or his or her attorney; or

(5) Associate circuit judges, circuit judges, judges of the courts of appeals, supreme court judges, and their employees who need to obtain such records to perform their public duties.

8. Any person who obtains records pursuant to the provisions of this section shall use such records only for investigative and prosecutorial purposes, including but not limited to use at any criminal trial, hearing, or proceeding; or for law enforcement identification purposes, including identification of human remains. Such records shall be considered strictly confidential and shall only be released as authorized by this section.

9. An individual may request expungement of his or her DNA sample and DNA profile through the court issuing the reversal or dismissal. A certified copy of the court order establishing that such conviction has been reversed or guilty plea has been set aside shall be sent to the Missouri state highway patrol crime laboratory. Upon receipt of the court order, the laboratory will determine that the requesting individual has no other qualifying offense as a result of any separate plea or conviction and no other qualifying arrest prior to expungement.

(1) A person whose DNA record or DNA profile has been included in the state DNA database in accordance with this section and sections 650.050, 650.052, and 650.100 may request expungement on the grounds that the conviction has been reversed, or the guilty plea on which the authority for including that person's DNA record or DNA profile was based has been set aside.

(2) Upon receipt of a written request for expungement, a certified copy of the final court order reversing the conviction or setting aside the plea and any other information necessary to ascertain the validity of the request, the Missouri state highway patrol crime laboratory shall expunge all DNA records and identifiable information in the state DNA database pertaining to the person and destroy the DNA sample of the person, unless the Missouri state highway patrol determines that the person is otherwise obligated to submit a DNA sample. Within thirty days after the receipt of the court order, the Missouri state highway patrol shall notify the individual that it has expunged his or her DNA sample and DNA profile, or the basis for its determination that the person is otherwise obligated to submit a DNA sample.

(3) The Missouri state highway patrol is not required to destroy any item of physical evidence obtained from a DNA sample if evidence relating to another person would thereby be destroyed.

(4) Any identification, warrant, arrest, or evidentiary use of a DNA match derived from the database shall not be excluded or suppressed from evidence, nor shall any conviction be invalidated or reversed or plea set aside due to the failure to expunge or a delay in expunging DNA records.

10. When a DNA sample is taken from an individual pursuant to subdivision (2) of subsection 1 of this section and the prosecutor declines prosecution and notifies the arresting agency of that decision, the arresting agency shall notify the Missouri state highway patrol crime laboratory within ninety days of receiving such notification. Within thirty days of being notified by the arresting agency that the prosecutor has declined prosecution, the Missouri state highway patrol crime laboratory shall determine whether the individual has any other qualifying offenses or arrests that would require a DNA sample to be taken and retained. If the individual has no other qualifying offenses or arrests, the crime laboratory shall expunge all DNA records in the database taken at the arrest for which the prosecution was declined pertaining to the person and destroy the DNA sample of such person.

11. When a DNA sample is taken of an arrestee for any offense listed under subsection 1 of this section and charges are filed:

(1) If the charges are later withdrawn, the prosecutor shall notify the state highway patrol crime laboratory that such charges have been withdrawn;

(2) If the case is dismissed, the court shall notify the state highway patrol crime laboratory of such dismissal;

(3) If the court finds at the preliminary hearing that there is no probable cause that the defendant committed the offense, the court shall notify the state highway patrol crime laboratory of such finding;

(4) If the defendant is found not guilty, the court shall notify the state highway patrol crime laboratory of such verdict.

If the state highway patrol crime laboratory receives notice under this subsection, such crime laboratory shall determine, within thirty days, whether the individual has any other qualifying offenses or arrests that would require a DNA sample to be taken. If the individual has no other qualifying arrests or offenses, the crime laboratory shall expunge all DNA records in the database pertaining to such person and destroy the person's DNA sample.



edit on 4-6-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I can't help but wonder how/when it will finally happen. When will they finally demand that we all allow them to collect our DNA and keep it on file? Or will they just wait for the next generation and collect it at birth?

You know how it goes with these people. One step with them is never just one step. It is always a clue as to what direction they're headed and what their ultimate goals are. Even if the ultimate goal is crystal clear to start with, it becomes clearer with each step.

We all know these people are not going to be satisfied with "only for serious crimes". Anyone who has been paying attention over the last 12 years or so would have had to roll their eyes there. Your DNA is everything and they know it. They will not let pesky details like privacy and innocence get in the way of that.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


The ignorance and blind hatred of the cop haters on this site is astounding.

How about you people fix your rectal-cranial inversion and actually place the outrage where it belongs -

On the United States Supreme Court

NOT Law Enofrcement.

The laws to collect DNA are in place because of the Legislature...
The laws can be enforced because of the Executive...
The laws stand because of the Supreme Court.

Law Enforcement has nothing to do with drafting / signing these into law.

Please learn how your government works before opening your mouth.. You only serve as an indictment of the US Educational System when you scream at law enforcement for something they have no control over.

GET INVOLVED IN GOVERNMENT



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


The ignorance and blind hatred of the cop haters on this site is astounding.

How about you people fix your rectal-cranial inversion and actually place the outrage where it belongs -

On the United States Supreme Court

NOT Law Enofrcement.


I'm assuming you were referring to me? If so, you're reading me wrong. I wasn't referring to cops. I understand cops are (mostly) just doing their jobs.

I don't hate cops. But I don't trust them either. I've come across too many of them who gave me a hard time just because they could. But you're basically right. The people running things are the ones pushing this agenda, IMHO.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Liberals are interested in protecting people's liberty and privacy.


It seems you honestly believe that, but I hope that you will take the time to research the facts, which clearly disprove your statement.

First, the Patriot Act of 2001, a clear assault on privacy and liberties of the People, was passed on the yea votes of 98 of the 100 senators and 357 of the 432 representatives. The act's reauthorization, in 2006, passed on the yea votes of 89 senators and 66 democrat representatives.

Second, I don't know if you have read any of the so called Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which was passed wholly along party lines, with the democrat majority of both houses triumphant, but it contains some of the most egregious usurpations of patient privacy of any law in history. I agree the republicans didn't vote against the bill because of privacy issues, but they did vote against it.

Third, look into which administration is currently demanding the release, by Google, of user IP addresses and email content, bypassing the courts with National Security Letters.

Are there individual members of the democrat party who are truly concerned with citizen privacy. I'm sure. Just as there are individual members of the republican party, who fight for privacy. But, as a whole, both establishment parties care not for your privacy.

The democrat and republican parties are two heads of the same snake.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


And I cringe every time I hear the Ancestry.com advertisement urging People to submit DNA specimens for genealogical purposes.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miracula
I wouldn't care if they swabbed me.

It's only going to be used if you eventually commit a serious felony or violent crime like rape or murder.

This info if only used for identifying possible serious felons who have committed a serious crime against another person is good. It will help get unsolved crimes solved and dangerous people off the streets.

As long as they make a rule that the information collected can only be used to prosecute serious felonies of the highest class and violent crimes, who cares what information the gov't collects as long as it promotes public safety.

If they use the info for anything other than public safety of identifying serious felons, let me know, I will march on Washington DC. Until then, they collected fingerprints when I joined to serve the Coast Guard. Not a major problem for me. Why, because I don't go around committing violent crimes. No one has ever used my fingerprints to punish me for my various speeding tickets.
edit on 4-6-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)


Item one: What if they say you commited a serious crime?

Item two: As in several recent and less than extreme cases:
What if the genetic information is used for identifying possibly troublesome citizens
who have done nothing except to be contrary to the government's policies? That starts to
sound like the government has arbitrarily and without justification called one dangerous
(if only to it) without one committing a crime. This is getting more prevalent in the somewhat
unsettling correlation of a dissenter's credibility and visibility being directly associated
sometimes to his individual freedom-- or even longevity if he had political traction. Get
arrested at a rally, get swabbed/harvested later. In more extreme or visible incarnations--
see Paul Wellstone, Larry McDonald, Louis Mcfadden.. you'll get it.
Those three were all elected Feds. Hmmmm


Item three: On what pretext of the public safety is the right to one's person and possessions
justifiably violated? What, in other words, is the extent of the threat to the public safety the
point where preventing a crime is held above a person's Constitutional or even basic
human rights?
Example, and I'm living it...Q:"Is he going to go get larried up tomorrow afternoon and
get behind the wheel? A. We should keep him poor and maybe push him out into the
snow for twenty or so years just to be safe. If he starves, freezes or rots from cancer at
the only job he could walk to...oh well, at least the public safety was upheld."

See where that's going?

Item four, lastly: You're assuming the government is going to use your genetic information in
a manner subject to the Constitution, law and the rules of evidence. Good luck on that one...
I'm not a genius,
but present politics still indicate two plus two remains the square root of sixty-four, Winston.
And they'll grab the other sixty from anybody who trusts a statistician without their knowing.
This is the reason why the worst of the criminal code in application was written by criminals...
to protect themselves from prosecution for those very crimes, not the people from them.

I have to go back to eBay now and see whether or not I can pay some of my rent from last
month selling tools I've tried to save for twenty years at four to seven cents on the dollar--
and not get cracked for felony self-preservation. Thanks for the runt.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


And I cringe every time I hear the Ancestry.com advertisement urging People to submit DNA specimens for genealogical purposes.


I wasn't even aware of that but it doesn't surprise me. I went to one of those sites just out of curiosity (because I don't really know my family history that well). Then found they wanted me to sign up with them and pay them for the info. No thanks. I wasn't even comfortable with that amount of privacy loss.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


Honestly, this does not seem like an unreasonable search or seizure, they're not swabbing everyone (just those that have already been seized). The Fourth Amendment does not give anyone the right to commit a crime, it is there to protect the innocent from an abuse of power. DNA swabs will go a lot further towards protecting rights by eliminating unnecessary seizures on RS- this is a vast improvement of Fourth Amendment protections, at least the way I see it, and it is not adding an unnecessary intrusion to accomplish it. Looks like a win for the good guys!


The arrested are still innocent, it's the convicted that are guilty. Just being an acquaintance of a person who committed a crime and you not being forthcoming with what you know about them is enough to get you arrested, for that matter exercising most constitutional rights will get you arrested.

The idea behind dna swabbing or fingerprints is to track repeat offenders of serious crimes, however right now you get put into the system (at which point you're tracked for the rest of your life) not for an offense, but because they wanted to. Until you're convicted and sent to jail, no one should be processed and put into the system. And even then the guilty deserve more protections than they get, seeing as how it's a lifelong punishment.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


The Fed was collecting DNA samples on every newborn in the state of MN, until somebody sued them.

If you really don't think they're collecting DNA samples every time you go to your docter to have your cholesterol tested - you are an IDIOT.

They are scanning for a lot more than just a possible criminal conviction.

The reason they are collecting samples from "possible criminals" is because they ususally don't have health insurance, and get their blood tested legally.

See the obozocare protocols and online health records - this is really a very large issue - for all people.

Forced vaccinations is only a beginning......



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   
The really scary part is a lot of this stuff is pretty much flying under the radar. You'll see it mentioned on TV but then it sinks like a rock. The media sure isn't going to tell people why they should care and really drive the point home. People won't know that until it's too late. As usual.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


And I cringe every time I hear the Ancestry.com advertisement urging People to submit DNA specimens for genealogical purposes.


That /facepalm is right up there with Geiko and its history.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


Apparently I did misread your position.

I sincerely apologize.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   
well, well, well, i have to applaud the newbies ... well done Sotomayer & Kagan

have to honestly say i didn't expect that vote from either of them.

imho, this is beyond a Constitutional violation.
ppl are still Innocent until PROVEN guilty of whatever.

all i can say at this point is ~ i forsee an awful lot of hair-pulling incidents in our very near future.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Having served in the military my DNA is already on file somewhere I have no real idea where or how they keep it or for how long but I can almost guarantee that they allow Law Enforcement Agencies to search it regularly.

So for me, because of my career choice and the military's desire to be able to ID all bodies regardless of their state of decomposition or obliteration my DNA is catalogued. I really have no problem with that collection as I was a volunteer and it was simply a job requirement.

However, to take a DNA sample at the time of arrest for every person arrested is simply an invasion of privacy. One's DNA is not needed for the successful prosecution of most cases, say DUI and Driving without a license etc., I'd say if having one's DNA would help the prosecution then take it but to allow it for every arrest and to be taken from everyone is just authorizing a fishing expedition to see what else they can pin on the suspect.

Police work is easy when they no longer have to use investigative methods or have probable cause just arrest everyone for minor infractions then run DNA and hope to solve all the old crimes out there. Soon we'll all be in the data base and there will be no need for investigators at all... If one of your hairs is in someone’s house and they were later murdered you become a suspect - especially if you have a record. How many people's houses, cars, and offices have you been in? You leave trace DNA everywhere you go...

Sad state of affairs.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by UsedUp
Having served in the military my DNA is already on file somewhere I have no real idea where or how they keep it or for how long but I can almost guarantee that they allow Law Enforcement Agencies to search it regularly.


If I remember right if we run a criminal history, that will state whether a persons DNA is on file or not. Requesting a criminal history is logged and requires a specific reason for the CH request.

I also think, I will need to check, that if there is a criminal driving history, the DOR information will note if DNA is on file or not. Don't quote me on the last part, I need to check into it.

Also after looking into some of the other Supreme Court cases dealing with electronics I did notice a pattern. The Supreme Court is basing its position, DNA collection and search cell phones / electronics etc, on direct officer contact and arrest.

While I cannot randomly walk up to a person and search them, if I am making an arrest I can search that individual (Search incident to arrest). They seem to be interpreting those law enforcement actions (cell / electronic / DNA) on that legal basis.

Also, while im thinking about it, the difference between a DNA swab and say a blood draw is location. A blood draw is invasive since it is entering the body to extract the blood where as a DNA swab is less intrusive.

I was arguing with myself on why one is allowed - DNA - and the other can be refused and if refused, only obtainable by a warrant - Blood draw.

Either way I think DNA collection should be restricted and tightly controlled with checks and balances in place to prevent abuse. I think DNA samples should be taken for certain crimes and only taken once the person is convicted.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Then why did all the Liberal Justices vote against these intrusive laws? And those same justices and most of the Democratic Party voted against the Patriot Act. The Republicans didn't because they orchestrated it. The GOP own big business starting with oil - the biggest there is and enterprises like Walmart. These industry want's 100% control of the worker. Long hours and low pay, few safety concerns which is why they are trying for SMALLER GOVERNMENT (they want less regulations) and against UNIONS. They are blocking appointment of heads of various consumer protection agency because they are the SELLERS - Consumers be damned. I thought almost anyone could follow what is happening and see the end goal here. It is to make veritable slaves of the workers and strip them of their rights. The GOP passed CITIZENS UNITED and gave INDUSTRY & CORPORATIONS the same rights as individuals, gave them "personhood" Come on. You don't need a roof to fall on your head do you?
I understand there are some bad people amongst these 2 parties and in politics but they are NOTHING compared to the shadow government running things through an arm of the Republican Party and the DOD. Ever wonder why we spend TRILLIONS on an endless war during the middle of a great recession? It is because we have 2 defense lobbyist per congressman.


edit on 5-6-2013 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join