Curious what people think of this

mikepegg44

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite


The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting.

Godfather.

I don't really see a problem with it but I could see a lot of anger about it happening soon,if your clean and don't do crimes what have you got to worry about ? and besides that DNA sample you submit might clear you of a crime you did not do.

Godfather.

polaris_x

Godfather. wrote:

I don't really see a problem with it but I could see a lot of anger about it happening soon,if your clean and don't do crimes what have you got to worry about ? and besides that DNA sample you submit might clear you of a crime you did not do.

Godfather.

how about we do random strip searches? ... or take away the need for warrants for police to search your property? ... i mean if your clean - you have nothing to hide right?

well ... obviously, i think this is a gross violation of rights ... and that this move doesn't surprise me considering where the country is headed ...

dimitrispearljam

from the momment im not a criminal,it must be up to me if they can keep my DNA or not..
+ i dont want my DNA "accidentally" found in a crime scene..

JonnyPistachio

Interesting debate..

Is this accurate?:

Under those specifications, the court said, “taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

mikepegg44

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Interesting debate..

Is this accurate?:

Under those specifications, the court said, “taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

I can see why someone would think so, it is used for the same purpose, but I don't agree with it at all.

one is invasive the other isn't.

Why not grab DNA at birth from all babies and put it in a database. If they don't do anything wrong they have nothing to worry about right?

I liked scalia's response, "Sure this will help solve more crimes, but so would swabbing everyone who gets on an airplane."

Moonpig

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Interesting debate..

Is this accurate?:

Under those specifications, the court said, “taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

I can see why someone would think so, it is used for the same purpose, but I don't agree with it at all.

one is invasive the other isn't.

Why not grab DNA at birth from all babies and put it in a database. If they don't do anything wrong they have nothing to worry about right?

I liked scalia's response, "Sure this will help solve more crimes, but so would swabbing everyone who gets on an airplane."

Yeah good point Mike, hard to know where the line is if this is something someone would accept

JonnyPistachio

Moonpig wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Interesting debate..

Is this accurate?:

Under those specifications, the court said, “taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

I can see why someone would think so, it is used for the same purpose, but I don't agree with it at all.

one is invasive the other isn't.

Why not grab DNA at birth from all babies and put it in a database. If they don't do anything wrong they have nothing to worry about right?

I liked scalia's response, "Sure this will help solve more crimes, but so would swabbing everyone who gets on an airplane."

Yeah good point Mike, hard to know where the line is if this is something someone would accept

I guess that's my point. They can obtain DNA from swabbing your cheek, correct? How about spitting in a cup?
Is it any different than fingerprints? I have to wash my hands and wipe off annoying ink from fingerprinting.

But at the same time, I can understand how people would say this is violating their rights. I have no problem with it personally though. I like to think that they are using science to their advantage to prevent and solve crime. Isnt DNA more accurate and reliable than fingerprints?

What if there was an easier way to obtain DNA? would that be acceptable?

hedonist

Interesting thread, and semi-related article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... eate-faces
(very cool, actually, if you can see some of the art itself)

Also, what about when we submit to drug tests via urine, or hair strands? Our DNA is all over the place, can already be "taken" in many forms - right or wrong - without our knowledge. I guess this just makes it more...formal?

brianlux

hedonist wrote:

Also, what about when we submit to drug tests via urine, or hair strands? Our DNA is all over the place, can already be "taken" in many forms - right or wrong - without our knowledge. I guess this just makes it more...formal?

All of that bugs me, even being finger-printed, and I have nothing to hide. And maybe that's why- "I have nothing to hide so leave my body alone," is how I feel. But of course, resistance is futile.

JimmyV

It is a huge leap to go from swabbing people who have been arrested to swabbing all babies at birth or all airplane passengers as they board. I don't see those as being equivalent practices. If you have been arrested then this really is no different than fingerprinting. And if you have been arrested wrongfully there are avenues of protest open to you.

Godfather.

so far it's only people that get arrested right ?

Godfather.

mickeyrat

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I can see why someone would think so, it is used for the same purpose, but I don't agree with it at all.

one is invasive the other isn't.

Why not grab DNA at birth from all babies and put it in a database. If they don't do anything wrong they have nothing to worry about right?

I liked scalia's response, "Sure this will help solve more crimes, but so would swabbing everyone who gets on an airplane."

Yeah good point Mike, hard to know where the line is if this is something someone would accept

I guess that's my point. They can obtain DNA from swabbing your cheek, correct? How about spitting in a cup?
Is it any different than fingerprints? I have to wash my hands and wipe off annoying ink from fingerprinting.

But at the same time, I can understand how people would say this is violating their rights. I have no problem with it personally though. I like to think that they are using science to their advantage to prevent and solve crime. Isnt DNA more accurate and reliable than fingerprints?

What if there was an easier way to obtain DNA? would that be acceptable?

upon conviction of the crime they were arrested for would sit better with me.IN a sense this is compelling an individual to give evidence in violation of the 5th amendment. If they were able to procure it by other means upon simple arrest, i.e. soda can , water bottle etc, and not just taken into custody(this is where it could be abused)

My concern would be chain of custody.

Godfather.

President Obama signed the bill earlier this year. "It's the right thing to do," he said in 2010, of expanding DNA swabs for arrestees. "This is where the national registry becomes so important."

as much as I disagree with obama I think this will help to solve crimes like rape,murder,kidnappings etc.
so many killers and rappist that have been arrested and let go do to lack of evediance often times have commited other crimes as well but their DNA is not in the national database so it's harded to catch them but this new law will help to keep the bad guy's in jail. also most people that have been released from prison for crimes they did not commit owe their freedom to DNA testing so this could be a good thing.

Godfather.

puremagic

Everything about this Supreme Court’s ruling is unConstitutional as it relates to the 4th Amendment.
The 4th Amendment states

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Then, along comes the Supreme Court stating that if detained by law enforcement for protesting, DUI, shoplifting, bullying, or the 5 yr. old pointing his finger like a gun, who gets taken to a police station ‘must submit to a DNA test’. The important word is “DETAINED”. You don’t have to be arrested, you don’t have to be served a warrant, you could simply be that so-called ‘person of interest’ with possible information that could help law enforcement. However, once you’re ‘detained’ or detained by mistake, or detained a witness, you are subject to a DNA test at the discretion of law enforcement.

In order to get a viable DNA sample, you have to obtain a ‘living’ sample of the person. Body fluid, whether its urine or spit; whether its hair, or skin cells, constitutes taking a ‘living’ part of another human being. This ‘living’ part requires a person with the medical know how, to interrupt the testing of these ‘living’ samples. Yet, the Supreme Court states they don’t need a search warrant to take a part of your body.


The questions are

1. Who administers the swab and at what location?

2. What IMMEDIATELY happens to that sample after it is taken?

#1 & 2 are critical
--as it is easy to contaminate DNA samples if they are mishandled or improperly catalogued.

3. As the results of this DNA will ultimately be put into a centralized data bank from which the sample will be used for matching evidence found at potential crime scenes, - What happens to the original sample?

#3 is critical as because

--Even with DNA, a sample could generate multiple people within a race or sex, especially when there are no genetic flaws that are inherent to a specific person. To be specific to a future or pass crime, the DNA test would have to provide more details than a person’s race or sex. So, at what point does this occur?

--For these reasons, tested individuals should have the right to receive an immediate medical copy of that DNA test as it is a medical procedure. As this should be the right of the individual to obtain a copy of this test, it falls with the purview of the 4th Amendment -- The right of the people to be secure in their persons.

dancepartner

puremagic wrote:

In order to get a viable DNA sample, you have to obtain a ‘living’ sample of the person. Body fluid, whether its urine or spit; whether its hair, or skin cells, constitutes taking a ‘living’ part of another human being. This ‘living’ part requires a person with the medical know how, to interrupt the testing of these ‘living’ samples. Yet, the Supreme Court states they don’t need a search warrant to take a part of your body.


The questions are

1. Who administers the swab and at what location?

2. What IMMEDIATELY happens to that sample after it is taken?

#1 & 2 are critical
--as it is easy to contaminate DNA samples if they are mishandled or improperly catalogued.

3. As the results of this DNA will ultimately be put into a centralized data bank from which the sample will be used for matching evidence found at potential crime scenes, - What happens to the original sample?

#3 is critical as because

--Even with DNA, a sample could generate multiple people within a race or sex, especially when there are no genetic flaws that are inherent to a specific person. To be specific to a future or pass crime, the DNA test would have to provide more details than a person’s race or sex. So, at what point does this occur?

--For these reasons, tested individuals should have the right to receive an immediate medical copy of that DNA test as it is a medical procedure. As this should be the right of the individual to obtain a copy of this test, it falls with the purview of the 4th Amendment -- The right of the people to be secure in their persons.

good post. I guess this becomes yet one more area we need to learn about. Thanks for a deeper glimpse.