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

[BenBurch]

I love license plate scanners! They close crimes. And what privacy are you supposed to expect for your freaking license plate???????????

 

[SumDood]

So in this great 'DNA Database' is there a list of DNA from unsolved cases? Is ALL DNA taken from people arrested/convicted run against this list?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So in this great 'DNA Database' is there a list of DNA from unsolved cases?

Yes--that's the "Forensic Index" part of CODIS.

Is ALL DNA taken from people arrested/convicted run against this list?

I'm not sure, but it's certainly possible to look for matches between the Forensic Index and the Arrestee Index.


You're talking about the Combined DNA Index System, or CODIS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_DNA_Index_System

Originally, CODIS consisted of the Convicted Offender Index and the Forensic Index, but in recent years, the Arrestee Index, the Missing or Unidentified Persons Index, and the Missing Persons Reference Index have been added.

<snip>

CODIS has a matching algorithm that searches the various indexes against one another according to strict rules that protect personal privacy. For solving rapes and homicides, for example, CODIS searches the Forensic Index against itself and against the Offender Index. A Forensic to Forensic match provides an investigative lead that connects two or more previously unlinked cases. A Forensic to Offender match actually provides a suspect for an otherwise unsolved case. It is important to note that the CODIS matching algorithm only produces a list of candidate matches. Each candidate match is confirmed or refuted by a Qualified DNA Analyst. (To become Qualified, a DNA Analyst must meet specific education and experience requirements and undergo semi-annual proficiency tests administered by a third party.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What's scary is, if DNA testing puts someone at the scene of a crime it's almost impossible to get a jury to dismiss it, even when other evidence suggests it's possibly wrong.

I'm not too sure what you're talking about now. You seem to be lumping two different things now.

See my previous, a CODIS match is more or less a screening. If you get a hit, an actual DNA analysis is required as DNA evidence. And that evidence is accurate to an absurdly high degree (and that degree of certainty is given as part of the analysis). If the evidence provided by a Qualified DNA Analyst puts you at the scene of a crime, we are well beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fact at the scene of a crime.

Personally, since other kinds of evidence (especially eyewitness testimony) is much less reliable, I'm glad that juries generally see DNA evidence as trumping less reliable evidence.

Our legal system doesn't have to be certain beyond the possibility of being wrong in order to convict. If that were the case, we could never convict anyone since it is always possible that we got it wrong.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Did you read either one? Because you do a lot of quoting verbatim without ever supplying an actual quote or a link.

I quote verbatim without supplying an actual quote?

And as I said, there's a link to the PDF of the decision in the article linked in the OP. You can also find on-line versions of it by searching Maryland v. King.

By the way, for legal purposes, citing "Maryland v. King" is sufficient.

I'm not sure either one -- the court decision or the ACLU brief -- is available on line.

All Supreme Court decisions are available on-line. The ACLU brief is linked to in the article you cited.

A web page, a news story and excerpt from Scalia's opinion is not the same as reading the case and/or the brief, is it?

You really need me to spoon feed you the links. (BTW, Kennedy wrote the court's decision. Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion.)

OK.

Here's the link to the PDF of the decision from the Supreme Court's website (this is the link given in the first sentence of the NY Times article cited in the OP):

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf

And here's a link to the decision available on-line:

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public...2207_2013_BL_143974_US_June_03_2013_Court_Opi

Here's a link to the SCOTUSBlog page for the case, which has a brief summary, plus links to the docket, the lower court's decision, the oral argument (as audio or as transcript) and the opinion.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/maryland-v-king/


Here's the link given in the ACLU blog to their amicus brief in the case:
https://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/amicus_king.pdf

Now do you understand why this decision does not expand government authority to allow police to require DNA sampling for someone violating a dog leash law?

 

[Dorian Gray]

All caps because I've only said it about 109 times or so....

Putting something in all-caps numerous times doesn't make it any more relevant. Case in point: ostensibly, everyone has a government-issued ID that can be seized upon arrest. Law enforcement can just use facial recognition software to compare the person's face to that on the ID. There's no need for fingerprints... BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY IDENTIFIED YOU! OMGWTFBBQ KTHXBYE!!!!!

Your argument is like saying pierced ears are okay, but pierced anything else is WRONG WRONG WRONG! (Including the shrieking all-caps.) I'm saying the Supreme Court has ruled that all those things constitute body piercing, and that I agree. Furthermore, I highly suspect that had DNA come first and the current issue was about fingerprints, you'd be using the same shrieking all-caps argument against fingerprints because they're more unique. And later, when retina scans become a thing, you'll do it again, with similar results.

It is, yes. Unfortunately I disagree with the SCOTUS on this, but it is legal, yes. They are the highest court in the land, and what they decide is law.

Cool. Bottom line, don't do any crimes to be tied to, and you won't have anything to worry about.

 

[Dorian Gray]

You don't see a difference is using a fingerprint, which is very easily obtained, classified, and archived to identify a specific person and/or to try to connect/rule out a specific person to/from a specific crime, and collecting DNA which is very easily obtained, classified, and archived to identify a specific person and/or to try to connect/rule out a specific person to/from a specific crime? I certainly do.

FTFY, and no, I don't.

I've not read the ruling. Do you happen to have a link off hand? I'd like to read it.

"I don't know what it says, but I'm totally opposed to it!"

Brilliant. You should run for Congress.

 

[triforcharity]

FTFY, and no, I don't.

"I don't know what it says, but I'm totally opposed to it!"

Brilliant. You should run for Congress.

Wow, you completely changed and ignored my point. Blatant cherry picking of the likes usually seen by truthers. Kthankxbye.