• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Justices Allow Police to Take D.N.A. Samples After Arrests

triforcharity said:
Quick is coming, I agree. Easy to collect the evidence, yes, I agree, and know that. However, the process to liberate the DNA is still a time consuming process, and requires quite a bit of work, though even that is advancing too.

However, as I said above, it's not the fact that they're gathering the DNA, it's what they're using the DNA for. They're not using it as strictly identification, they're using it for evidence of different crimes, and that is where I disagree that it is "no different than a fingerprint". IMO.
Click to expand...

If I left my fingerprints when I stole the Hope Diamond ten years ago, and then today I get arrested for discharge of a firearm within city limits and they fingerprint me, don't you expect them to run the prints and attach me to the jewel heist?
 
Last edited:
The primary reason for fingerprints, is to identify or confirm an identity. If they only used it to connect you to another crime, you'd have a good point. However, they're not. If DNA was used for primarily identification, I'd be ok with it being used for other purposes. But, of course, it's not.
 
triforcharity said:
The primary reason for fingerprints, is to identify or confirm an identity. If they only used it to connect you to another crime, you'd have a good point. However, they're not. If DNA was used for primarily identification, I'd be ok with it being used for other purposes. But, of course, it's not.
Click to expand...

They don't only use DNA to connect you to crimes!

They use it to exclude you from crimes.

They use it to determine if the foot they found washed up on the riverbank was you.
 
"the Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence," he concludes, Maryland's law is unconstitutional."

Okay, by this reading, airport security is unconstitutional. There is absolutely no reason to suspect any given passenger of any crime, intent of any crime, or possession of any illegal substance or contraband, or any weapon. And yet millions of passengers are, by Scalia's standard, "illegally" searched every day.

The issue at work here is 'unreasonable' - the majority of people (I guess) think that in light of some planes being hijacked by 19 of the hundreds of millions of passengers, they all need to be searched. Furthermore because of one guy out of the hundreds of millions of passengers taking advantage of the lower limit of metal detectors, they all need to take their shoes off. Reasonable? You're doing it, right?

On top of this, fingerprints are taken upon being arrested, not convicted. And if your fingerprints happen to tie you to a previous unsolved crime, as BenBurch just said, then you will be charged with it. By not having a problem with fingerprints, you can't really have a problem with DNA - both are uniquely identifiable to you and you alone. And before anyone says it, same for retina scans.

To me, arguing against this is tantamount to saying a rapist shouldn't be busted for that rape because one day he drove drunk, got arrested and his DNA tied him to the rape - he should get away with the rape.
 
I understand that. However, they can, and do use it for exactly what I said, and that is the PRIMARY reason the police and law enforcement WANT the DNA. Those others are not their goal. Equating it to fingerprinting is inaccurate.
 
Dorian Gray said:
"the Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence," he concludes, Maryland's law is unconstitutional."

Okay, by this reading, airport security is unconstitutional. There is absolutely no reason to suspect any given passenger of any crime, intent of any crime, or possession of any illegal substance or contraband, or any weapon. And yet millions of passengers are, by Scalia's standard, "illegally" searched every day.

The issue at work here is 'unreasonable' - the majority of people (I guess) think that in light of some planes being hijacked by 19 of the hundreds of millions of passengers, they all need to be searched. Furthermore because of one guy out of the hundreds of millions of passengers taking advantage of the lower limit of metal detectors, they all need to take their shoes off. Reasonable? You're doing it, right?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You have the option not to enter into an airport. Your right to fly, or even travel by public transportation, is not protected.

Dorian Gray said:
On top of this, fingerprints are taken upon being arrested, not convicted. And if your fingerprints happen to tie you to a previous unsolved crime, as BenBurch just said, then you will be charged with it.
Click to expand...

Correct. However, their intention of gathering DNA, is not to identify that you are Dorian Gray. That is what fingerprints and mug shots are for.

Dorian Gray said:
By not having a problem with fingerprints, you can't really have a problem with DNA - both are uniquely identifiable to you and you alone. And before anyone says it, same for retina scans.
Click to expand...

I do have a problem with it. They're not using to primarily for identification. They want it to connect you to a crime. That is why police collect DNA.

Dorian Gray said:
To me, arguing against this is tantamount to saying a rapist shouldn't be busted for that rape because one day he drove drunk, got arrested and his DNA tied him to the rape - he should get away with the rape.
Click to expand...

No, not in the least. The ends do not justify the means IMO.
 
I believe that people have the right to not incriminate themselves, yes. So does our constitution.
 
You aren't incriminating yourself. Forced incrimination is being forced to testify or divulge evidence that would tend to incriminate yourself, often with the lose-lose that you will be punished if you don't. The British loved doing that.

You leave your DNA everywhere. Every McDs coffee cup you throw away has enough of your DNA on it to type. In fact, they have found that if they have the original fingerprint card they can occasionally get your DNA from the inked impression.
 
I disagree. I feel it is self-incrimination. Forcing you to provide evidence that could be used against you, without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or any kind of a judge's order, I feel is wrong. The 5th doesn't just apply to spoken word. The SCOTUS disagreed, so it is what it is. WRT: leaving my DNA everywhere, do you really, honestly think I don't know this? I'm not stupid. I also suggested other legal means of collecting the DNA. Such as tooth brushes, trash, etc. This isn't my first rodeo discussing evidence, how it's collected, and how it can be used, nor is this a new concept for me. Please don't talk down to me. I know it's not intentional, but that's the way you've come across in the last post.
 
triforcharity said:
I disagree. I feel it is self-incrimination. Forcing you to provide evidence that could be used against you, without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or any kind of a judge's order, I feel is wrong. The 5th doesn't just apply to spoken word. The SCOTUS disagreed, so it is what it is. WRT: leaving my DNA everywhere, do you really, honestly think I don't know this? I'm not stupid. I also suggested other legal means of collecting the DNA. Such as tooth brushes, trash, etc. This isn't my first rodeo discussing evidence, how it's collected, and how it can be used, nor is this a new concept for me. Please don't talk down to me. I know it's not intentional, but that's the way you've come across in the last post.
Click to expand...

Your argument would seem to preclude fingerprints (providing them may link you to a crime), yet you mysteriously have no problem with fingerprints being taken. Also, since you have said it is pretty easy to gather DNA evidence, it makes a DNA swab that much less unreasonable. And as has been pointed out, DNA can be used to exclude you just as easily as indict you.
 
Last edited:
*sigh.....* Did you not read a single thing I posted? I've made at least 2 semi-detailed posts explaining my position, and explaining my logic for believing what I do. Let's do the reader digest version. Fingerprinting= PRIMARILY, and has been for MANY years, been used to IDENTIFY a person, or verify an identity. DNA- not used primarily to identify someone. Yes, it CAN be used for other purposes, but the PRIMARY reason a LE agency would use DNA is NOT for identification. It's to convict of a crime. I really cannot make this any more clear. Is that why the DNA is primarily gathered? Yes, it is. The fact that DNA can be obtained with a mouth swap is irrelevant. It's what that DNA is USED for. Plain and simple. I'd prefer some reasonable suspicion at least, and really would prefer a court order.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
It's not primarily for identification that we have 50 million fingerprint exemplars in the FBI database, though. It is for being able to connect people to crimes.
Click to expand...

THAT IS WHY THEY GET THEM TO BEGIN WITH! What they do with them AFTER is another separate issue all together. It's really not difficult to follow along Ben....come on man.
 
triforcharity said:
No, it's not intended for identification.
Click to expand...

Currently it's a bit too expensive and a bit too time consuming to be used for identification. That's going to change in the next, ooh, five minutes or so.

Then it will be used for identification and will be a better fingerprint.
 
I have a very simple two-word answer for all the people talking about how quick and easy DNA testing is (or soon will be), about all the "noble purposes", as Scalia put it, that the DNA samples may be put to. So what?

The Constitution's purpose is to limit government intrusion not to assist law enforcement.

Already
all 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals to check against federal and state databanks, with the Supreme Court’s blessing.
Click to expand...

That's enough. Justice Scalia found no compelling reason to expand that to people charged with -- but not yet convicted of -- a crime. I don't either.
 
I don't see the big deal.

Here's an article/blog post from the ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology...nal-law-reform/dna-privacy-goes-supreme-court

---
newyorkguy said:
I have a very simple two-word answer for all the people talking about how quick and easy DNA testing is (or soon will be), about all the "noble purposes", as Scalia put it, that the DNA samples may be put to. So what?

The Constitution's purpose is to limit government intrusion not to assist law enforcement.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the Constitution is to create a "more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide a common defense" yada yada yada. One means to accomplishing this is to limit the powers of the state in our private affairs. And so what? Why do we always have to get precious about the Constitution? Is this policy OK in England?

That's enough. Justice Scalia found no compelling reason to expand that to people charged with -- but not yet convicted of -- a crime. I don't either.
Click to expand...

If Kitty "Have a Look at THESE" Sanchez gets assaulted in a stairwell, male employees in the building may have to submit to DNA swabbing even though they're not even being charged with a crime. Can these guys say, "Hey, you can take my prints, fine, but NOT my DNA. That's special."

I still don't see the big deal. I am not my DNA. People are more concerned about their privacy when it comes to love letters, bad poetry, the mole on their micro-penis, their micro-penis. I understand the number 1 item stolen from drugstores is hemorrhoid cream (which is used to treat hemorrhoids). Is there a more awful sounding word than hemorrhoids? (Sorry to those with hemorrhoids.)
 
A DNA sample provided at the police station can't be a fifth amendment violation because it doesn't incriminate you - it does nothing but attach a specific genotype to your name.

It's the DNA sample you left at the crime scene that incriminates you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom