Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

[INRM]

Dirtywick,

Not that invasive, but still invasive. Any invasion of privacy should be reasonably justified.

Correct

 

[Travis]

Personal information.

All this type of DNA sampling tells them is who you are. There is no additional information they can glean from it. It's really no different than a SSN. So do you think your name is "personal information?"

Do you always fly off into a rage every time someone asks you your name?

"You have no right to know who I may or may not be copper!"

 

[dirtywick]

All this type of DNA sampling tells them is who you are. There is no additional information they can glean from it. It's really no different than a SSN. So do you think your name is "personal information?"

Do you always fly off into a rage every time someone asks you your name?

"You have no right to know who I may or may not be copper!"

You think I'm flying in a fit of rage? You're the guy using italics, I'm not even using capital letters. Just saying.

The fingerprints already serve that purpose.

 

[Region Rat]

All this type of DNA sampling tells them is who you are. There is no additional information they can glean from it. It's really no different than a SSN. So do you think your name is "personal information?"

Do you always fly off into a rage every time someone asks you your name?

"You have no right to know who I may or may not be copper!"

No, that's not entirely true. The OP was not just to provide DNA to prove or identify who you are. If that was the case, then it should be mandatory for every citizen to provide a DNA sample to a national database, and if there is any question regarding your identification, they could look it up.

The point of the OP is that people who are arrested are being asked to provide evidence for the government to prove you are implicated in some as yet unidentified past or future crime. Not everybody, just people who happen to be arrested, which is, in itself, not proof of guilt in any crime. This is way different.

You have no control over where your DNA ends up. You leave a trail of DNA behind where ever you go. Others pick it up and transport it.

Let's say you were some young professional living in Chicago, and decided to walk along the lakeshore during the Blues Fest and smoke a joint. The cops pick you up, arrest you, take your DNA, and then decide to drop the charges because it's your first offense, you're a local professional, and they don't want to waste anymore time on you. But now, your DNA is in a national database. 2 years later in another city you once visited, there is a crime and a trace of your DNA is at the scene. All collectible DNA is run through the national database, and because of your past dope smoking, your name comes up. The cops, bound to follow all leads, come to your office to ask you some questions. Nancy Grace gets a hold of your name, and your life is ruined (OK, the last part is a bit over the line).

If this is not what the cops will use the DNA database for, then exactly what is the point. Like you say, they have your fingerprints, SSN, picture, all physical characteristics. Why do they need DNA unless they are going to use the info to track down potential suspects. But, they only get people who have been in the system before, so they are just assuming you will be in the system again. This is wrong.

 

[Region Rat]

Know how you avoid being DNA'd? Don't commit any crimes. Don't eat or drink or bathe or pee or poo or scratch or run your fingers through your hair when you're outside your house. You know, completely normal and sane things like that.

You know how to avoid being concerned with cops listening in on your phone conversations? Just don't say anything against the law. If those lowlifes have been arrested once, why not allow cops to listen in to their conversations?

You know how to avoid being concerned when the cops want to search your car or house? Just don't have any contraband. If those lowlifes have been arrested once, why not let the cops search their house to see if you have any hot merchandise?

After all, what do law abiding citizens have to worry about?

 

[Richard Masters]

All this type of DNA sampling tells them is who you are. There is no additional information they can glean from it. It's really no different than a SSN. So do you think your name is "personal information?"

Do you always fly off into a rage every time someone asks you your name?

"You have no right to know who I may or may not be copper!"

There's identity theft, and it's also nice to have some control over your personal information. ETA: I'm addressing your analogy; obviously DNA doesn't lend itself to identity theft, yet.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

All this type of DNA sampling tells them is who you are. There is no additional information they can glean from it. It's really no different than a SSN. So do you think your name is "personal information?"

That's not true. It can also tell them if you were at crime scenes where DNA evidence has been collected. That's why I think the 5th Amendment argument is stronger (but still not very strong). The point of collecting it is to identify suspects in crimes in order to help solve crimes. If your DNA matches evidence collected in such circumstances as to prove that you are guilty of a crime, then the sample you provided is part of the evidence of your guilt.

But again, I don't think it's an argument that will succeed, because it's the same idea as routinely collecting fingerprints.

 

[Magyar]

Ever heard of the Miranda rights? Cops can ask, but you don't have to answer.

Actually you are WRONG!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

And, the SCOTUS has ruled that it is constitutional to have a state law that requires one to identify themselves if asked by a law enforcement officer. The Court has also stated that in many situations, the failure to identify oneself when asked by a police officer can be enough to give the officer probable cause to arrest you (such as if the police are investigating a crime that just happened, or if you're in a high crime area at night and appear very nervous or suspicious).

If they have probable cause, they can get a warrant to get more information.

AGAIN - you are WRONG. The police have the right to detain and book you on suspicion.
and a search warrant is NOT required to finger print or photo you at booking. DNA which is a far more accurate method (if done properly) than fingerprint analysis is simply keeping up with the time. IF you know anything about what you are talking about and were actually concerned about this issue you would do a little research and read about how week finger print identification really is and you'd be happy to switch to DNA.

I know this isn't the strongest link but there are dozens of others if you bother to look.
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c...0556cc0fd4e51ab7852571e300634d52?OpenDocument

At any rate, this is a matter for the states, and Obama doesn't get to decide it.

and this is just another example of the woo that is the republican mentality. It is absolutely retarded that in a world where you can hop on a plane and be on the other side of the world in less than a day you want to restrict the powers of the police to the lowest common denominator to catch a serial killer, a rapist or a child molester. Because lets face it, it isn't a shop lifter or the bicylce theif that the police are going to utilize a tedh nology that requires special skills, labs and high costs.

 

[I Ratant]

All the convicted persons I've watched in court sessions are required to give DNA samples upon release, as one of the conditions for release.
As too many of these people are repeat offenders, I find that quite fair.
I'd even accept taking DNA samples at birth.
(Helps with the "Who's your real daddy? at the very least. )