govt wants dna of everyone arrested

[McBoog]

And yet the lawyer came in and said your "search incident to arrest" stuff was BS too.

 

I may have an opinion that folks disagree with, but I don't go around throwing legal terms around as if I knew what they meant, when I clearly don't. That's the difference between being able to respect someone's different opinion and knowing they are a dooush.

 

I guess that means that I know what you are then?

 

One "lawyer" in the cyber world does not a Supreme Court make. The vast majority of lawyers have minimal direct experience with any of this. Whatever lawyer you are talking about, I would love to see the creds related to the writing, isuing and enforcing the laws related to arrest, search and seizure.

 

I "respect" your opinion and see the thin line between this and fingerprints. Again you soundbyte my post and fail to see where I too have trouble with the issue. Your blind hatred oozes through every post and I actually do feel sorry for your inability to seperate discussion from emotion.

[AtomicCEO]

One "lawyer" in the cyber world does not a Supreme Court make. The vast majority of lawyers have minimal direct experience with any of this. Whatever lawyer you are talking about, I would love to see the creds related to the writing, isuing and enforcing the laws related to arrest, search and seizure.

 

Tell me again about Law 101.

 

Make that point again, only with more condescension and more detail on how "search incident to arrest" gives the cops the right to catalog my genetic profile.

 

Please be concise and factual.

[tonorator]

blind hatred oozes

 

 

not sure if this is a better band name or fantasy football team name ...

[Azazello1313]

I don't believe in isms. I just believe in me.

 

 

 

I've did 30 seconds of searching around for info on this to see how it relates.

 

It looks like any laws requiring PKU screening have undergone a great deal of scrutiny about privacy and constitutional issues.

The results of the test are strictly confidential and are not accessed or kept by any government agency.

 

If the government started keeping the samples from these tests and using them for law enforcement, these laws would no longer stand up to a constitutional test.

 

the point is, the government already takes blood from every single person who is born. if they were inclined to institute some nefarious sci-fi eugenic plot, I'm guessing that is where they would start.

[McBoog]

 

not sure if this is a better band name or fantasy football team name ...

 

[AtomicCEO]

the point is, the government already takes blood from every single person who is born. if they were inclined to institute some nefarious sci-fi eugenic plot, I'm guessing that is where they would start.

 

I disagree.

The government does NOT take blood from every single person who is born.

 

Some states require that a person have the hospital of their choice do a test which is held in strict confidence. The government takes nothing. The government receives nothing. They neither "search" nor "seize" anything.

 

I find your comparison to be lacking.

[Azazello1313]

I disagree.

The government does NOT take blood from every single person who is born.

 

Some states require that a person have the hospital of their choice do a test which is held in strict confidence. The government takes nothing. The government receives nothing. They neither "search" nor "seize" anything.

 

I find your comparison to be lacking.

 

here's a quote from the wikipedia article on newborn screening decribing the procedure:

Every hospital in the state as well as independent midwives supervising home deliveries are required to collect the papers and mail each batch each day to the central laboratory.

 

The state health department agency in charge of screening will either run a laboratory or contract with a laboratory to run the mandated screening tests on the filter paper samples.

so the government either receives the samples directly, or decides exactly which "independent" lab they go to.

 

I win again

Edited May 21, 2008 by Azazello1313

[WaterMan]

You realize movies don't equal real life, right Mr Orwell?

 

So just because something might be in a book or a movie, it won't happen to us?

 

Kind of like the Bible.

[AtomicCEO]

[yo mama]

the point is, the government already takes blood from every single person who is born. if they were inclined to institute some nefarious sci-fi eugenic plot, I'm guessing that is where they would start.

Your intransigence is commendable. But, once again, its not an issue of what the government may or may not do with our DNA that matters: its the fact that they aren't legally entitled to it. It's not hard for the police to get a warrant for my DNA if its really that important to them. But if they're too lazy to ask a judge for a warrant, that's not my problem. And if they do ask for a warrant but the judge denies it, then they weren't entitled to that information in the first place.

 

Analogously, (and ignoring for a moment that pesky 4th Amendment), it is very easy for police to tap someone's phone. It certainly doesn't require any effort or inconvenience on the part of the phone owner: heck, they might not ever know their phone was even tapped. And the vast majority of information that would be gathered on most folks would be innocuous, from a criminal law perspective. However, that doesn't mean the cops are entitled to warrentlessly tap the phones of every person they arrest. Thankfully, the 4th Amendment protects against that kind of intrusion into our lives. The same is true with warrantlessly gathering DNA information from folks who are merely arrested.

 

You see, that's the main reason I've got a problem with this. Its not so much that I'm concerned with what may happen with my DNA: its the danger of setting a precedent that otherwise protected individual freedoms become waived merely because it becomes technologically simple for government to ignore them. That kind of thinking is antithetical to this Country's founding principles.

Edited May 21, 2008 by yo mama

[Azazello1313]

Your intransigence is commendable. But, once again, its not an issue of what the government may or may not do with our DNA that matters: its the fact that they aren't legally entitled to it.

 

well, at best that's a matter of opinion, and I'm not sures the case law thus far supports your position.

 

It's not hard for the police to get a warrant for my DNA if its really that important to them. But if they're too lazy to ask a judge for a warrant, that's not my problem. And if they do ask for a warrant but the judge denies it, then they weren't entitled to that information in the first place.

 

that's kind of a silly statement. by the time they are thinking about asking for a DNA sample from a particular person, that person is a suspect, they will get a warrant, and so on. this policy is something totally different, it is trying to build a database (mandated by law), similar to the national fingerprint database, that allows them to match DNA left at a crime scene to someone they already have a file on. to say they should seek a warrant and they're "lazy" if they don't just demonstrates extreme ignorance of what we're talking about.

 

Analogously, (and ignoring for a moment that pesky 4th Amendment), it is very easy for police to tap someone's phone. It certainly doesn't require any effort or inconvenience on the part of the phone owner: heck, they might not ever know their phone was even tapped. And the vast majority of information that would be gathered on most folks would be innocuous, from a criminal law perspective. However, that doesn't mean the cops are entitled to warrentlessly tap the phones of every person they arrest. Thankfully, the 4th Amendment protects against that kind of intrusion into our lives. The same is true with warrantlessly gathering DNA information from folks who are merely arrested.

 

You see, that's the main reason I've got a problem with this. Its not so much that I'm concerned with what may happen with my DNA: its the danger of setting a precedent that otherwise protected individual freedoms become waived merely because it becomes technologically simple for government to ignore them. That kind of thinking is antithetical to this Country's founding principles.

 

that is another awful analogy, a phone tap is targeting a specific individual.

 

look, it's pretty simple. you get arrested. they take your mugshot. they take your fingerprints. they take a cotton swab of the inside of your cheek. all the information gets stored so that it is easier to catch you in the event you commit a crime in the future. I'm not sure having your cheek routinely swabbed after you got arrested for a crime is the kind of violation the founding fathers had in mind with the 4th amendment. I'm interested to see how the case law comes out on this, but at this point I'm really viewing it simply as a practical matter, and I still don't see how it's substantively different than taking fingerprints. and if it is different, I do think you need to weigh that against the benefits of the program. I tried to find stats on how much of an affect CODIS is having, couldn't find anything comprehensive, but check this out. in one year, 2003, in one state, texas, CODIS helped solve 16 murders, 66 rapes, 34 burglaries and 5 robberies. multiply that by 50 states, and consider how much the CODIS database has grown since 2003, then consider how many crimes it is helping to solve around the country today. that is an awful lot of crimes to leave unsolved and unpunished.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Azazello1313

[Grits and Shins]

Your intransigence is commendable. But, once again, its not an issue of what the government may or may not do with our DNA that matters: its the fact that they aren't legally entitled to it. It's not hard for the police to get a warrant for my DNA if its really that important to them. But if they're too lazy to ask a judge for a warrant, that's not my problem. And if they do ask for a warrant but the judge denies it, then they weren't entitled to that information in the first place.

 

Analogously, (and ignoring for a moment that pesky 4th Amendment), it is very easy for police to tap someone's phone. It certainly doesn't require any effort or inconvenience on the part of the phone owner: heck, they might not ever know their phone was even tapped. And the vast majority of information that would be gathered on most folks would be innocuous, from a criminal law perspective. However, that doesn't mean the cops are entitled to warrentlessly tap the phones of every person they arrest. Thankfully, the 4th Amendment protects against that kind of intrusion into our lives. The same is true with warrantlessly gathering DNA information from folks who are merely arrested.

 

You see, that's the main reason I've got a problem with this. Its not so much that I'm concerned with what may happen with my DNA: its the danger of setting a precedent that otherwise protected individual freedoms become waived merely because it becomes technologically simple for government to ignore them. That kind of thinking is antithetical to this Country's founding principles.

 

 

Funny how the precedent is irrelevant in the area of gun control