Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

[Richard Masters]

Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

Gerstein posts a televised interview of Obama and John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, “It’s the right thing to do” to “tighten the grip around folks” who commit crime.

...

When it comes to civil liberties, the Obama administration has come under fire for often mirroring his predecessor’s practices surrounding state secrets, the Patriot Act and domestic spying. There’s also Gitmo, Jay Bybee and John Yoo.

...

The American Civil Liberties Union claims DNA sampling is different from mandatory, upon-arrest fingerprinting that has been standard practice in the United States for decades.

A fingerprint, the group says, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.

Looks like GATTACA territory. I think it would be awesome to see technology used that way. But that's only because I like technology. On the ethical side it's wrong to go around collecting DNA from people who didn't commit crimes.

 

[INRM]

I think this is a very bad idea...

 

[quixotecoyote]

I don't think this goes beyond fingerprinting as far as invasion of privacy goes, but the emotional pandering in that interview was nauseating.

 

[Donal]

On the ethical side it's wrong to go around collecting DNA from people who didn't commit crimes.

It's for people that are arrested. I'd prefer they wait for a conviction rather than just arrest if it is just for adding to the national database, but you make it seem they are just going out collecting random people's DNA. However, if it is to place a person at the crime scene, I see no problem with it.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It's for people that are arrested. I'd prefer they wait for a conviction rather than just arrest if it is just for adding to the national database, but you make it seem they are just going out collecting random people's DNA. However, if it is to place a person at the crime scene, I see no problem with it.

This is wrong on two levels:

1. The concept of innocent until proven guilty means that as far as the law should be concerned, the arrested is just another random person until proven otherwise.
2. If the police have probable cause to arrest a person and believe they might have committed the crime, they should be able to get a warrant for that DNA without any new laws.

 

[Loss Leader]

The concept of innocent until proven guilty means that as far as the law should be concerned, the arrested is just another random person until proven otherwise.

Um ... if that were true, there'd be no such thing as bail. There'd be no pre-arrest confinement or even a pat-down when stopped by police.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is an evidentiary standard. That's all it is. It's a principle to be applied upon finally determining someone's guilt. Until then, the only real standard is probable cause. Does the government have cause to believe the person is probably guilty of something?

If the police have probable cause to arrest a person and believe they might have committed the crime, they should be able to get a warrant for that DNA without any new laws.

That doesn't make any more sense than your first point. The only reason police would need to sample your DNA when investigating a crime is if they had some sort of DNA to match it to from the scene. Despite what is shown on television, the vast majority of crimes don't ever involve police collecting any DNA.

If you're suspected of stealing my bicycle from outside the video store because the cops have you on the store's security camer stealing my bicycle, how is DNA going to help them there?

Let them take the DNA sample. If you're found not guilty, you can move to have the record expunged.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Um ... if that were true, there'd be no such thing as bail. There'd be no pre-arrest confinement or even a pat-down when stopped by police.

True. I meant to have the bit about probable cause in there as I did in point 2.

That doesn't make any more sense than your first point. The only reason police would need to sample your DNA when investigating a crime is if they had some sort of DNA to match it to from the scene. Despite what is shown on television, the vast majority of crimes don't ever involve police collecting any DNA.

If you're suspected of stealing my bicycle from outside the video store because the cops have you on the store's security camer stealing my bicycle, how is DNA going to help them there?

Why would they want to in that case?

However, if they did have some DNA evidence at the crime scene, and they had you on video, that would be plenty of probable cause to do so, new law or no new law.

Let them take the DNA sample. If you're found not guilty, you can move to have the record expunged.

IANAL, but expungement just seals the records, it doesn't destroy them.

 

[Travis]

Well, next thing you know they'll want to keep names, SSN#'s and the birthdates of people who are arrested. Where will the insanity end!?!

 

[Denver]

A fingerprint, the group says, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.

I can understand the worry of the sample being used for more than ID (being stopped for a broken taillight, DNA revealing you are related to some Most Wanted person, and finding yourself detained and questioned because of that connection - is that level of analysis possible and accurate?). But including a statement about DNA maybe predicting a propensity for violence, especially with no source quotation, seems suspicious and sensationalist.

And looking at the authors other articles, it appears this is the kind of scary stuff (crime, privacy) he specializes in, which makes it more worrisome he is slanting this article with that statement just to get clicks.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, next thing you know they'll want to keep names, SSN#'s and the birthdates of people who are arrested. Where will the insanity end!?!

I don't think that's a good analogy. DNA contains far more information in a sample than someone's birthdate.

How about we go ahead and take urine, hair, and blood samples on every arrest? Does anyone have any problems with that?

 

[applecorped]

I once voluntarily gave a urine sample when pulled over. (a stool sample as well).

 

[Denver]

I once voluntarily gave a urine sample when pulled over. (a stool sample as well).

If they pulled a gun on me, I'd probably give them involuntarily.

 

[Corsair 115]

DNA contains far more information in a sample than someone's birthdate.

But is any of that information used for identification comparison purposes? Isn't it more a case of only a certain set of genetic markers which are used to determine whether the sample from a suspect matches that gathered from the crime scene?

 

[joobz]

This is an interesting question.
Does the 4th amendment give us the right to anonymity, which is what Fingerprinting, DNA photos, records do? Their primary function is to remove our anonymity.

 

[drkitten]

But is any of that information used for identification comparison purposes?

Typically, no. For identification comparision purposes, investigators tend to look at VNTRs, which are very informative from an identification standpoint, but almost meaningless from a medical/privacy standpoint.

Similarly, the "database" that has been collected (CODIS) keeps track of only 13 genes (plus a fourteenth for sex). I believe there is one suspected linkage between one of those genes and one genetic disease. If all that is stored is the CODIS data, there's not much that someone can learn about your genetics from your CODIS data.

Of course, if the physical DNA is what's stored, then they could always re-analyze the data and learn anything they like. But this would be prohibitively difficult and expensive. I can put the CODIS data for a million people onto a thumb drive; actual DNA samples for a million people would require a large climate controlled building.

 

[drkitten]

This is an interesting question.
Does the 4th amendment give us the right to anonymity, which is what Fingerprinting, DNA photos, records do?

No. There's case law on this.

The gathering of fingerprint evidence from 'free persons' constitutes a sufficiently significant interference with individual expectations of privacy that law enforcement officials are required to demonstrate that they have probable cause, or at least an articulable suspicion, to believe that the person committed a criminal offense and that the fingerprinting will establish or negate the person's connection to the offense. See Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 813-18 ('85); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-28 ('69).

Nevertheless, everyday 'booking' procedures routinely require even the merely accused to provide fingerprint identification, regardless of whether investigation of the crime involves fingerprint evidence. See Smith v. U.S., 324 F.2d 879, 882 (D.C. Cir.'63) (Burger, J.) ('it is elementary that a person in lawful custody may be required to submit to . . . fingerprinting . . . as part of the routine identification processes'); Napolitano v. U.S., 340 F.2d 313, 314 (1st Cir.'65) ('Taking fingerprints [prior to bail] is universally standard procedure, and no violation of constitutional rights.'). Thus, in the fingerprinting context, there exists a constitutionally significant distinction between the gathering of fingerprints from free persons to determine their guilt of an unsolved criminal offense and the gathering of fingerprints for identification purposes from persons within the lawful custody of the state.

Although the drawing of blood from free persons generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a person has committed a criminal offense and that his blood will reveal evidence relevant to that offense, see Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 768-71; U.S. v. Chapel, ___ F.3d ___, slip op. at 5753-54 (9th Cir.'95) (en banc), the absence of such a warrant does not a fortiori establish a violation of the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights.

 

[NoScotsman]

If the police have probable cause to arrest a person and believe they might have committed the crime, they should be able to get a warrant for that DNA without any new laws.

This is an excellent point. Hard to argue any legitimate reason why this new power is warranted...

Obama is moving in the wrong direction on civil liberties .... DNA sampling, centralized health records, extending the Patriot Act (instead of repealing it), warrantless searches (sneak &peak), rendition, indefinite detention, etc.

When Bush started this ball rolling, at least there was a party standing against it (rhetorically, at least). Unfortunately, Obama and his fellow democrats are now LEGITIMATIZING the permanent erosion of our civil liberties. Power loves power....

 

[joobz]

No. There's case law on this.

Interesting. I would have wondered if one could have argued that a more invasive ID-ing procedure(e.g., blood sampling) could be a violation of ones rights, (perhaps, not 4th amendment but maybe 8th?) But it seems what you referenced doesn't even consider warrentless blood sampling of those arrested as an obvious 4th amendment violation.)

And since DNA collection is much less invasive than blood sampling, one would have to conclude that to collect samples from those arrested is fully acceptable practice.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Interesting. I would have wondered if one could have argued that a more invasive ID-ing procedure(e.g., blood sampling) could be a violation of ones rights, (perhaps, not 4th amendment but maybe 8th?) But it seems what you referenced doesn't even consider warrentless blood sampling of those arrested as an obvious 4th amendment violation.)

And since DNA collection is much less invasive than blood sampling, one would have to conclude that to collect samples from those arrested is fully acceptable practice.

Whoa. Taking blood generally requires a warrant and does implicate the 4th Amendment. There are possible exceptions, just as the police may search your home or car sometimes without a warrant, according to the situation.

 

[joobz]

Whoa. Taking blood generally requires a warrant and does implicate the 4th Amendment. There are possible exceptions, just as the police may search your home or car sometimes without a warrant, according to the situation.

But what is the inherent difference between taking a swab of DNA and inking of fingerprints?