Justices Allow Police to Take DNA Samples After Arrests

Surprised I havent seen this posted yet (did a search which only yielded two results, so if its already been posted, I apologize)

WASHINGTON — Police may take DNA samples from people arrested in connection with serious crimes, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

Note, this allows them to take DNA samples from those ARRESTED, not convicted. Innocent until proven guilty?

The federal government and 28 states authorize the practice, and law enforcement officials say it is a valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes. But the court said the testing was justified by a different reason: to identify the suspect in custody.

I find this to be a gross invasion of privacy. If we were talking about people that had been convicted, it would be one thing. But we are talking about ARRESTEES. People that have been convicted of nothing.

I got arrested once, for being in the vicinity of a riot. I was not involved. My arrest was quickly overturned, and I was released, when it became quite clear I have nothing to do with it.

Now, this law would have allowed them to take and store my DNA, even though I was completely innocent.

Scary stuff

I agree with the privacy issue based on an arrest. How many people will be arrested then released uncharged just for a DNA sample. I suppose they now see DNA like a fingerprint.

Originally posted by roadgravel
I agree with the privacy issue based on an arrest. How many people will be arrested then released uncharged just for a DNA sample. I suppose they now see DNA like a fingerprint.

Thats the exact argument they used to get it to pass. Personally, i think it is far more of an invasion than fingerprinting.

How long before DNA sample is required for any license.

Originally posted by roadgravel
How long before DNA sample is required for any license.

Not to mention, how long until your doctor is required to take and store your DNA?

Ive never been big on the DNA data mining conspiracies, but when they start forcefully taking it, i shiver.

Justices Allow Police to Take DNA Samples After Arrests

Ten, twenty or thirty years ago? This would not be so troubling. It has to be taken into context with the current administrations trouncing if the privacy and security of Americans.

Combine this ruling with so many others that basically rip our constitution to shreds and leave tha average American with no real canopy of legal protection? It is a horrible decision.

The more I think about this, why should fingerprints or DNA be taken unless a person is convicted of a crime or it is voluntary given by the person.

Unless you are the kind of person that is likely to be arrested you really don't need to worry all, that much.... Of course there is always the possibility that a sample of a person's DNA could be planted at a crime scene but that could be used as a defense argument to cause doubt amongst jurors.

How is this different than taking finger prints? Finger prints do have an extremely high rate of accuracy but so does DNA and DNA tells a lot more too.

reply to post by hypervigilant


But DNA is considered such good evidence. At this point, all people in enforcement cannot be trusted to not plant evidence or cover up. It does happen.

reply to post by Malcher

How is this different than taking finger prints?

As I mentioned earlier, why are fingerprints involuntarily taken. it should be up to the person to offer them to clear their name, if they so wish. That fingerprint action opens the door to this type of action.

Don't see the big deal.. Many people steal identities , look like other people or claim to be while the wise guy is on the lose what would a simple string of hair or spit in a cup hurt..... What do you think they're gonna do make millions of lones using people's DNA?

This ruling is exactly the type of decision made by those who are scientifically illiterate...it very well may end up creating a category 5 #storm.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by hypervigilant

 

But DNA is considered such good evidence. At this point, all people in enforcement cannot be trusted to not plant evidence or cover up. It does happen.

That would be really stupid and serve about zero purpose considering a person would loose their job and face prosecution and like i said for what purpose considering you would not know if the person has a rock solid alibi.

The police in the UK rush out to arrest as many people as they can as witnessed on one of the many Cops programmes on tv here when the Cop said, rubbing his hands together "Lets see who we can arrest today".

Our dna has been taken whether you want to give it or not when they process someone arrested.. You're arrested before they even investigate your 'crime' often simply on an allegation and then left for months on bail.

But does anyone object to giving their dna. Here I suspect the police sell it to the big Pharmas and it concerns me considerably because we are giving up the codes of our lives. At worst that is information we should have an option to sell or offer for scientific research. Also could it be used to formulate chemical weapons to attack certain genetic types?

The police were caught out with their dna grabbing when they refused to use the dna data bank to find a rapist when a girl was attacked in Bournemouth. It was only when the family contacted the local Echo newspaper and they carried the story that the police were shamed into using their data base. When I was burgled and asked if they could take dna from the tool left behind after forcing my window open, the policeman laughed at me as though I had suggested he fly to the moon. So why do they want our dan and for who do they collect it if they don't want to use it for everyday crime.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Malcher

 

How is this different than taking finger prints?

As I mentioned earlier, why are fingerprints involuntarily taken. it should be up to the person to offer them to clear their name, if they so wish. That fingerprint action opens the door to this type of action.

People are fingerprinted for many reasons other than crimes. If you were to go for a job and they wanted to fingerprint you would refuse? If you did you would be in the overwhelming minority.

Originally posted by noissucnoc16
Don't see the big deal.. Many people steal identities , look like other people or claim to be while the wise guy is on the lose what would a simple string of hair or spit in a cup hurt..... What do you think they're gonna do make millions of lones using people's DNA?

The big deal? The general public seems to hold DNA evidence as the "gold standard"....now that law enforcement can obtain a sample without a warrant (huge invasion of privacy)...they can easily manipulate it for an agenda to frame innocent people. How are you going to argue your innocence when the prosecutors say they've recovered your DNA from the crime scene?

reply to post by Malcher

If you were to go for a job and they wanted to fingerprint you would refuse?

But you have a choice. What about a job asking for your DNA.

I will not use bank if they want a finger print on a check, Some private bank isn't going to have that. I have no idea what they might do with it in the future.The company offering the average job has no need for a fingerprint.

AS far as planting evidence, it has happened may times in the past. Look at the throw down gun issue, etc/

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by hypervigilant

 

But DNA is considered such good evidence. At this point, all people in enforcement cannot be trusted to not plant evidence or cover up. It does happen.

That would be really stupid and serve about zero purpose considering a person would loose their job and face prosecution and like i said for what purpose considering you would not know if the person has a rock solid alibi.

Zero purpose unless you hold a view point that "disrupts the status quo."

Already posted.

www.abovetopsecret.com...