Mass DNA test for town

[toddjh]

Not based on *nothing more* than your refusal to give a DNA sample. If that is all they have, they are crossing the line from a routine investigation of everyone, to harrassing an individual for exercising their Constitutional rights.

Sorry, that's not what I meant. You said that if they were never asked for a DNA sample, but other evidence against them was gathered independently, then they could then be compelled to give a sample.

If everything went the same as above, except the suspect was originally asked for a sample and refused, what would that change? The other independent evidence would still be there.

But anything obtained by the police has to be outside of the '*Because* he refused to give a sample' box.

Sure. I've never said otherwise. The only thing I said regarding that is that a person's refusal to give a sample may shift some investigative attention in his direction.

Jeremy

 

[crimresearch]

"If everything went the same as above, except the suspect was originally asked for a sample and refused, what would that change? The other independent evidence would still be there."

If the police are conducting a routine investigation, they can for example, ask potential witnesses what they saw.
If a description of a person comes up, they can start focusing on people who match that description.

If OTOH, they first do a random DNA sweep, and then take the description of any who refused to cooperate, and ask witnesses 'Did you see this guy around at the time of the crime?', they are no longer conducting a routine investigation.

At some point, a defense attorney is going to ask 'Why did you show the witness my client's picture?'...if the answer is 'Because he wouldn't give us a sample', the judge should be very, very unhappy with that.

 

[toddjh]

At some point, a defense attorney is going to ask 'Why did you show the witness my client's picture?'...if the answer is 'Because he wouldn't give us a sample', the judge should be very, very unhappy with that.

Of course. Again, I never said otherwise.

Just in case I am being (repeatedly) unclear:

1) Refusal to submit a sample is not illegal. It should not result in harassment or illegal treatment, and no threats of such should be made by police.

2) It does not constitute any kind of evidence, admissible or otherwise.

3) It is not grounds for a search warrant, or anything else that requires probable cause.

4) It MAY result in extra attention from police, as they attempt to gather more evidence through legal means.

In this case, the way the police phrased the request might be a little iffy, but I don't see what's illegal about asking for DNA samples from the general public. Certainly the outcome of that request could be misused, but so could a thousand other things.

Jeremy

 

[webfusion]

refuse to consent to a search

todddjh said:My friend got her car torn apart after being pulled over for speeding because the officer's "request" to search it didn't sound too optional at the time.

Two quick things:

Law enforcement officers are trained to intimidate people into consenting to searches. You do not need to consent -- Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections apply.

1. If you refuse/decline, the officer has other options, including the impound of the vehicle, since you are under investigation for breaking a law that endangers the public safety (speeding). During the process of impounding, the car can be searched to inventory the contents.

2. You can carry a notepaper on you, that says: "I do not consent to a search of my [person, baggage, purse, luggage, vehicle, house, blood, etc.] I do not consent to this contact and do not want to answer any questions. If I am not under arrest, I would like to go now (or be left alone)."
If you cannot tell whether you may leave, you can ask officers, "Am I under arrest or otherwise detained?" If the answer is, "No," you may leave
(Obviously, the officer wants to write a ticket on the infraction he stopped you for, and he'll tell you to chill and sit there, so don't get hostile -- it's best to just accept that!).

By invoking your Constitutional Rights, the officer cannot use that as "probable cause" to suspect you for anything. (although, of course he/she will try to pursue that line of questioning...)
"what, you have something to hide? Why won't you allow the search if you are clean?".. etc...
Hey, all lawyers will tell you, don't fall for this BS.

In the case of being pulled over for speeding (or any other motor vehicle infraction, like no seatbelts, talking on the cellphone, no headlights, running a light ,etc) the officer is certainly not going to arrest you unless you refuse to sign the ticket/court appearance ROR -- by signing the summons you essentially are agreeing to being 'released on own recognizance'

Searches are a bonus for the cops in those circumstances.
By the way, did the police find anything incriminating when they tore apart the car of your friend?

 

[webfusion]

pdf version of your rights

Download the PDF version of your rights --
http://www.norml.org/pdf_files/freedom_card.pdf

(courtesy of NORML - National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws)

 

[toddjh]

Re: refuse to consent to a search

Law enforcement officers are trained to intimidate people into consenting to searches. You do not need to consent -- Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections apply.

Sure, and my friend even knew this. The cop was just so slick about it and he made it seem so routine that she never felt like she had a chance to object. At least, that's what she told me -- I wasn't there.

Searches are a bonus for the cops in those circumstances. By the way, did the police find anything incriminating when they tore apart the car of your friend?

No comment!

Jeremy

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The GRK left his DNA inside the vagina of a murdered woman.

Sometimes DNA tells us more than mere presence at a crime scene. It all depends on the what and where of it....

-z

So what conclusions do you draw from that? Is there any evidence that the victim had sex with the person who killed her, as opposed to someone else?

In fact the presence of DNA in these circumstances does not even necessarily establish presence at the crime scene at all. It is perfectly possible that the DNA came from earlier sexual activity at a different location.

Sometimes DNA is not sufficient to even establish presence at a crime scene, as you have been kind enough to demonstrate.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

A thought occured to me:

Is it only since DNA was available that such screening has been considered? There doesn't appear to be any particular reason why a similar thing could not have applied when an unidentified fingerprint was found - are there any cases where mass fingerprint screening of a community took place?

The problem I have with DNA evidence is the number of people who believe it can prove guilt. I have often heard people argue that the death penalty would be acceptable in cases where there is DNA evidence as there is no risk of error. I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the presence of DNA means.

 

[Roadtoad]

Uh, Jaggy, in the GRK case, the semen was found in DEAD victims. The SAME DNA.

Hmmm, now let's see:

Signs of violence done to the body.

Semen in the vagina.

Victim is now dead.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Uh, Jaggy, in the GRK case, the semen was found in DEAD victims. The SAME DNA.

Hmmm, now let's see:

Signs of violence done to the body.

Semen in the vagina.

Victim is now dead.

Draw your own conclusions.

Sorry didn't appreciate GRK was referring to the Green River case as opposed to the one referred to in the initial post.

Where there are multiple victims with the same DNA then connecting an individual with multiple victims is obviously helpful in making a case. This seems to be what you are saying in the first sentence with the reference to dead victims. DNA can be helpful in doing that.

I do not however accept that in every case where a murder victim is found to have semen present that semen must belong to the murderer.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I do not however accept that in every case where a murder victim is found to have semen present that semen must belong to the murderer.

It goes along with the fact that the automatic first suspect in any slaying is the victim's significant other.

 

[rikzilla]

So what conclusions do you draw from that? Is there any evidence that the victim had sex with the person who killed her, as opposed to someone else?

Well since my example was Gary Ridgeway aka the Green River Killer,...the answer is yes. Apparently with 4 of his victims the bodies were found soon enough after death to determine that the semen was deposited just prior to death. Not only that, but Ridgeway also was into necrophilia...so some DNA was deposited on some of his victims days after death.

So, if your jizz is all over and inside a dead body....well, I'd have to say that places you at the crime scene with a hard-on. Sure, you could still say it's not conclusive that you offed her yourself, but it makes you one seriously sick f*ck....and when this type of evidence is found on more than one corpse it's pretty clear evidence of guilt.

In fact the presence of DNA in these circumstances does not even necessarily establish presence at the crime scene at all. It is perfectly possible that the DNA came from earlier sexual activity at a different location.

In some cases you may be right...but in my example you are obviously not. Not only that, DNA evidence may be a large part of a crime puzzle...but it's not usually the only part. Of course there was some circumstantial evidence pointing at Ridgeway that prompted the search warrant served on him in 1987. The problem was, they didn't have enough to guarantee a conviction. Therefore they decided against prosecution. When the DNA technology improved enough to provide the "smoking gun" link in those 4 murders it was enough to convict him....but the DNA, important as it was, was not viewed in a vacuum. The DNA together with all the other evidence made the case.

Sometimes DNA is not sufficient to even establish presence at a crime scene, as you have been kind enough to demonstrate.

That could be true in some specific instances, but DNA left at a crime scene does in most cases place you at the scene. It's possible you were there before, or after the crime....but you were there unless you can prove that evidence was planted. In the case of semen or blood though, it's pretty hard for cops or an enemy to plant this without you giving it over in the first place.

Sometimes a case just comes down to whether or not a jury believes your story/circumstances...even if evidence is scarce or flimsy. Witness the case against Scott Peterson. There was no hard evidence placing him at the crime scene at the exact time of the crime. The bodies were so decomposed that the ME couldn't give a specific time of death...or even method of death. Yet Scott Peterson was convicted. Likely this is simply because the jury saw him as a scumbag...and saw the murder of Lacy and Conner as something consistent with the heartless scumbag they saw before them.

Much of what you say is true....but the fact is...if you were defending a guy who's, ahem, "DNA" was found inside a dead person....you'd have one hell of a job ahead of you.

-z

 

[Tmy]

Re: refuse to consent to a search

Two quick things:

Law enforcement officers are trained to intimidate people into consenting to searches. You do not need to consent -- Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections apply.

1. If you refuse/decline, the officer has other options, including the impound of the vehicle, since you are under investigation for breaking a law that endangers the public safety (speeding). During the process of impounding, the car can be searched to inventory the contents.

I think this is off a bit.

Its my understanduing that if you rae pulled over for a traffic violation, the most they can do is give you a ticket. THey cant tow your car (unless its unregistered or you dont have a license). SO if you are pulled over for doing 55 in a 54 and they ask to search, you can say no and the most they can do is write you a ticket.

Also, if you give permission to search you can later recind your permission and they have to stop. Unless they found somthing illegal already. So tell them to stop before they try an rip off your door panels.

 

[webfusion]

55 in a 54 zone?

THey cant tow your car (unless its unregistered or you dont have a license). SO if you are pulled over for doing 55 in a 54 and they ask to search, you can say no and the most they can do is write you a ticket.

a) Cops are looking for drugs (and DUI). That's why they seek for any violation they can. Failure to signal. License plate light out. Talking on cellphone is a good one. No seatbelts makes them very happy. 55 in a 54? Where do you live? We really wanna know, to avoid driving there, ever.
Going 90 in a 55 zone is felony reckless endangerment (beyond just a ticket) if the law enforcement officer so wishes to pursue that more serious charge. Yep, he can handcuff you and bring you downtown for fingerprints & photos, suspend your license for 30 days on the spot, no prob.
Going 50 in a 25 zone is also similar (especially in a residential zone, or near a school). For that matter, blowing by a stopped school bus could also conceivably get you arrested, depends on your attitude with the cop who Kojaks you. Trust me , if he so much as suspects you have ◊◊◊◊ in the car, and you refuse the search, he'll pretty much work several angles to get that car searched! Even call in the K9 unit for a quick sniff!

b) Police have the power on the spot, to suspend your license, if they decide that your infraction was a threat to the public safety.
Doing 25 or so miles over the legal limit falls into this category, if they so choose. And now you are standing there on Highway 76 with no license, so they can then go ahead and tow your car. Your objections to that will fall on deaf ears, since the cops now are really trying to screw you and search the car over your previous lame Fourth Amendment mumbo-jumbo.
Yeah, the courts can probably offer you some protection after the fact, but in the meantime, look at you --- no license, no car (and of course, you have been arrested since the cops found that crack pipe under the seat).

I've seen it happen, real world. Especially in rural towns that have Interstates running through (Georgia, Alabama, Texas).

 

[toddjh]

Re: 55 in a 54 zone?

55 in a 54? Where do you live? We really wanna know, to avoid driving there, ever.

I wanna know, just to see what kind of place has 54 mph speed limits.

Jeremy

 

[webfusion]

ya never know

Being the skeptic that I am -- went looking but couldn't find a source for the 54mph limit,
however this one is equally weird:

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: ya never know

Being the skeptic that I am -- went looking but couldn't find a source for the 54mph limit,
however this one is equally weird:

In Family Guy, Quaqmire sent Chris and Meg on a scavenger hunt, and one of the things they needed to find was a speed limit sign that didn't end in 0 or 5.

Chris had one that was 12.

 

[crimresearch]

1. If you refuse/decline, the officer has other options, including the impound of the vehicle, since you are under investigation for breaking a law that endangers the public safety (speeding). During the process of impounding, the car can be searched to inventory the contents.

Again, the wording of this leaves room to form an incorrect assumption.

Yes police have the right search incident to arrest, and to inventory before towing...but NOT based on *nothing* more than a refusal to consent to search.

Refusal to consent to search accompanied by a strong smell of pot, or muffled screams coming from the trunk, or a nervous disposition on the part of the driver, or any other 'observation, information, or set of circumstances...' equalling probable cause is different from a cop telling a judge that PC was derived from JUST the refusal to consent.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: ya never know

In Family Guy, Quaqmire sent Chris and Meg on a scavenger hunt, and one of the things they needed to find was a speed limit sign that didn't end in 0 or 5.

Chris had one that was 12.

They aren't really that rare. They did 12 and 13 mph signs on some navy bases I've been to, specifically because it forces more concentration on the speed. If the speed limit is 10 or 20, you can estimate your speed without checking the speedometer. If it says "13", you have to look.

Sometimes you come across them in residential neighborhoods, or apartment complexes.

 

[Tmy]

Re: ya never know

Being the skeptic that I am -- went looking but couldn't find a source for the 54mph limit,

The 55 in a 54 is a reference to a Jaz Z song, "99 Problems"

Theres a part of the song where hes pulle dover. Its a pretty good search n seizure primer. It goes somthing like:

"Sir do you know why I pulled you over fo'?
Cause Im young n I black and my hats real low,
Do I look like a mind reader I dont know.
Well you were doing 55 in a 54,
Are you carryin cause I know alot of you are"