Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

[Drysdale]

Eh, I dont really see a problem with it.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

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

The amount of information you can obtain. If the sample itself isn't kept, then the potential problems are much smaller and the comparison to fingerprints is a better fit.

Perhaps it is my background, but the first thing I am concerned about with police powers is the potential for abuse. Not because police or prosecutors are likely to try and maliciously abuse authority, but because ineviutably, somewhere, someonw in trying to zealously do the right thing will use it in any wrong way you leave open.

 

[GreyArea]

I've never had my DNA read, so I don't know what kind of health information it codes for. This is another thing that makes genetic information different from names, addresses, and ID numbers. I know what mine are, but I don't know what my DNA can tell me.

One concern I have with this policy idea is what it will mean for me when the data leaks. What prevents the local, state, or federal government from selling the data? How confident can I be that some office-worker isn't going to lose the CD or laptop with this data when he takes it home?

I can imagine a health insurance company wanting to buy this information, then denying me coverage for some disease I didn't even know I was susceptible to. (Never mind that I haven't even come down with it yet.)

If something like this became policy, should I get a full DNA test before being arrested, so that I would already know anything the police can learn about me? I wouldn't want them to have anything on me (in terms of superior knowledge about me, things I don't even know), especially since they wouldn't have anything on me (regarding a criminal record).

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Does anyone know how backed up the DNA analysis labs are? They can barely handle doing what they do now, so I don't see how they could start anything nefarious at any scale.

 

[joobz]

The amount of information you can obtain. If the sample itself isn't kept, then the potential problems are much smaller and the comparison to fingerprints is a better fit.

Perhaps it is my background, but the first thing I am concerned about with police powers is the potential for abuse. Not because police or prosecutors are likely to try and maliciously abuse authority, but because ineviutably, somewhere, someonw in trying to zealously do the right thing will use it in any wrong way you leave open.

True. You do not want datamining performed that would release information not intended. But if it is limited to just identification purposes using VNTR, I have no problem with it.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I see a rather strong delineation in the information made available by a complete DNA sequencing, chromosomal screening, and VNTR analysis.

If you want to simply "ID" a person, I am good with it.
If you know your suspect has genetic disease X, and you want to determine if the person in custody has genetic disease X, I think then you would need a warrent. Afterall, you aren't merely asking for "who is this person", but asking "Who is this person and do they have this specific disease". I would have to imagine that 4th amendment rules get activated then.

Now, note that VNTRs aren't purely ID only and do pose a potential risk to contain specific health information. I spoke with a research who was interested in higher throughput analysis of the VNTRs. It turns out that if you can get the VNTRs of parents and kids, you can make predictions regarding the person's likelihood to develop certain cancers. This stems from the ability to track the rate at which shifts in the VNTRs occur.

 

[Suddenly]

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

Invasiveness.

The taking of physical evidence from one's self is a fourth amendment issue, more or less the same search warrant, but usually I see it done as a court order. A lot of people want to see it as a self-incrimination issue, but the courts have, for good or ill, rejected that analysis.

It is a search/seizure issue. As it is now, the state could get DNA evidence by asking for a court order, that court weighs things such as the person's right to privacy, the invasiveness of the procedure, and whether it is necessary for the moving party's case.

If taking a DNA sample is no more invasive than a fingerprint, which as of now it isn't as far as I know, it is hard to argue that DNA shouldn't be taken upon arrest and filed away the same as fingerprints are now. We allow the intrusion of booking and fingerprinting based on the standard of evidence required to arrest someone. Just that DNA is likely more accurate than both seems an odd reason to not allow it...

 

[drkitten]

If taking a DNA sample is no more invasive than a fingerprint, which as of now it isn't as far as I know, it is hard to argue that DNA shouldn't be taken upon arrest and filed away the same as fingerprints are now. We allow the intrusion of booking and fingerprinting based on the standard of evidence required to arrest someone. Just that DNA is likely more accurate than both seems an odd reason to not allow it...

You may overestimate the intrusiveness of taking DNA samples. Most people think of blood samples when they think of DNA, which is indeed intrusive (it hurts). But the preferred method of taking DNA samples is with a swab from the inside of someone's cheek; it's slightly less intrusive than when a doctor sticks a tongue depressor in your mouth and says "Say 'Ah.'" You can also get useful DNA from skin samples, from hair samples, or from nail clippings.

We can argue about whether clipping 10-20 hairs from your head or swabbing the inside of your mouth is "invasive," but I think the answer is not clear-cut, and I could see a rational court going either way on that decision. I also suspect that as technology improves, we will probably be able to pull DNA even less intrusively, possibly from skin cells on the fingertips, which means we could do it while fingerprinting and people wouldn't even notice....

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Um, no. The Fourth Amendements states clearly that it is in relation to unreasonable searches and seizures. You are in custody for a suspected crime, they do not need a warrant to take your picture, fingerprints or get DNA.

Now if they want to enter your home the SCOTUS has set a probable cause standard, in addition to a warrant, having undergone arrest would also likely be considered 'probable cause'.

 

[Dancing David]

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....

Now believe me, I am a staunch proponent of civil liberties and also oppose the renewal of the Patriot Act, even with curtailed powers. yet extraordinary rendition is a more serious threat , as in the whol 'black hole' phenomena.

However, in the precense of rape kit samples, that are identified and DNA sampled, the use of DNA evidence resolves many many many rape cases in the FAVOR of the accused.

So why would you deny that to the accused?

It also links criminals in custody to the commision of crimes, how are your rights infringed upon. Do you think convicted felons to should have the right to housing and employment? That is a much more serious issue.

What civil liberty is the DNA sample reducing?

 

[Dancing David]

Invasiveness.

The taking of physical evidence from one's self is a fourth amendment issue, more or less the same search warrant, but usually I see it done as a court order. A lot of people want to see it as a self-incrimination issue, but the courts have, for good or ill, rejected that analysis.

A police officer may also invade your home, if theu have probable cuase to believe a crime has been commited. They can do a 'cavity' search when you enter custody in a jail. A swab of the mouth is much less inavsive than enetering your home or a cavity search.

 

[Suddenly]

A police officer may also invade your home, if theu have probable cuase to believe a crime has been commited.

They need a warrant to do this, with narrow exception. There is a measure of judicial review there.

They can do a 'cavity' search when you enter custody in a jail. A swab of the mouth is much less inavsive than enetering your home or a cavity search.

The cavity search is predicated on substantial penal interests, such as the need to prevent contraband from entering an institution. Apples and oranges, it isn't an ID issue.

I don't know if a mouth swab is sufficient as to making a permanent record as it has always struck me as much easier to contaminate than a sealed blood sample.

Invasiveness becomes a question of technology and whether we can assume a decent level of lab competency after expanding capacity to handle all of these samples.

 

[Region Rat]

I don't like it because you don't have control over where your DNA ends up. Look at the Ramsey thread and the discussion about touch DNA and tertiary sources and all that garbage. With fingerprints, I pretty much have to have touched that item, short of anyone having some James Bond fingertip devices. With DNA, a third party could be moving my DNA all around the country. Heaven forbid it ends up in someones panties (at least when put there by someone else).

Plus, if this is such a good idea, why not make it mandatory for all citizens? You think there would be that much support? Every citizen needs to be tested, and every baby needs to have its DNA placed in a database. Why not include all travelers who enter the country too? What is the difference. I think then there would be an outcry that all people are being accused of being porential criminals. You say its because anyone who is arrested is a threat to society? Even those who have charges dropped? Those who are aquitted? Whay should the innocent citizen be forced to follow up that his sample has been destroyed. Add to that the chain of custody issue that got OJ off and you'd have all sorts of court battles.

What if the George W. Bush administration had suggested DNA testing? Would some of you who are on board with this truly have supported him, or would it then have been an invasion of rights? I don't believe that for a minute.

 

[Suddenly]

Plus, if this is such a good idea, why not make it mandatory for all citizens? You think there would be that much support?

That pesky constitution and it's rules about search and seizure. Making DNA sampling appropriate as an ID measure when probable cause is found to arrest is one thing, quite another when you are just lining people up, things to fear or not.

I could see a private citizen choosing to be, or having his children be, in such a database for personal security reasons. My parents had me fingerprinted during the big child kidnapping scares circa 1980. BFD.

What if the George W. Bush administration had suggested DNA testing? Would some of you who are on board with this truly have supported him, or would it then have been an invasion of rights? I don't believe that for a minute.

Don't believe it then. What cynicism brings to the table or refutes is at best unclear, however...

 

[joobz]

Invasiveness.

I do not this invasion is an issue here. A much stronger case for disclosure of information is what is contested. Providing concrete identification through DNA doesn't seem to be protected (As Dancing david most recently agreed to).
But what is concerned is what other information is gleaned from the dna sample.


Like drkitten said, VNTR method is great for identification. However, even there it is possible that some medical information can be obtained from just that. This is directly observable if an extensive database of these VNTRs are compiled and datamining of that data is performed. I wonder if this has been attempted or if ethical concerns has limited this type of inquiry.

 

[DDWW]

Sure! Next thing Pres. Obama will support that along with the DNA you have to show a valid birth certificate that you were.......actually……born in………


Oh never mind.


Sorry, just had to stir the pot!

DD (I’m bad) WW

 

[Dancing David]

Sure! Next thing Pres. Obama will support that along with the DNA you have to show a valid birth certificate that you were.......actually……born in………


Oh never mind.


Sorry, just had to stir the pot!

DD (I’m bad) WW

[derail]
Guess what, I was born in 1958 in AZ, and guess what?

I have a Cerificate Of Life Birth. I must not be a citizen either!

[/derail]

 

[Suddenly]

I do not this invasion is an issue here. A much stronger case for disclosure of information is what is contested. Providing concrete identification through DNA doesn't seem to be protected (As Dancing david most recently agreed to).
But what is concerned is what other information is gleaned from the dna sample.

Like drkitten said, VNTR method is great for identification. However, even there it is possible that some medical information can be obtained from just that. This is directly observable if an extensive database of these VNTRs are compiled and datamining of that data is performed. I wonder if this has been attempted or if ethical concerns has limited this type of inquiry.

A person's privacy interest in the data contained within his DNA could be a factor for a court to weigh, but given the way DNA identification and database storage works at present it is a non-starter. This whole thing just sounds a bit paranoid to me as I don't quite grasp the potential danger here, sounds awfully theoretical.

As Drkitten alluded to, the data points used in DNA ID are pretty useless as far as revealing genetic traits, outside of the one genetic illness issue... which suggest that yes, people have looked into this...

 

[joobz]

A person's privacy interest in the data contained within his DNA could be a factor for a court to weigh, but given the way DNA identification and database storage works at present it is a non-starter. This whole thing just sounds a bit paranoid to me as I don't quite grasp the potential danger here, sounds awfully theoretical.

Oh, I agree. I was only arguing from the most generous position from an opposition viewpoint. I find the question raised here quite interesting and simply wanted to hear feedback on the point.

 

[dirtywick]

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.

Then why take everyone's DNA on arrest if that's true? It seems like a massive undertaking when on a nationwide scale for little benefit.

The invasiveness is to me an unnecessary argument. Though no more invasive than fingerprints, what additional function does DNA provide to identification that finger prints don't? I think that's the main reason fingerprints are taken.

-sorry need to clarify: The invasiveness isn't the issue IMO of the invasion of privacy. It's the justification; just because something is as minimally invasive as something already done doesn't mean that small amount of invasiveness is justified unless there's benefit.

 

[Region Rat]

For those who feel that this idea is constitutional, non-invasive, and just plain not a big deal, would you support the idea that everyone, not just those who happen to be arrested, must submit a DNA sample for a national ID database?